DRDO chief wants 7% of defence budget for R&D

[selvan33]

DRDO chief wants 7% of defence budget for R&D

With Defence Minister AK Antony demanding that less weaponry be imported and a greater percentage of India’s military requirements be developed and built in the country, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) wants a significantly higher budget and has spelt out a three-fold roadmap for indigenization.

In an exclusive interview to Business Standard, DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat, who is also Scientific Advisor to the Raksha Mantri, has said that DRDO’s funding must be raised from the current 5.2 per cent of defence expenditure to at least 7-8% of the defence budget.

“We need a minimum of 7-8% of the defence budget to successfully deliver the systems that the armed forces need. The current gap of 2% of defence budget will have a serious impact, forcing us to prioritize between our development projects,” says Saraswat.

The DRDO’s allocation of Rs 10,610 crore for 2013-14, would have been higher by Rs 3,650 crore if it had been allocated 7 per cent of the defence budget. The DRDO’s highest funding levels were in 2007, when it received 6.2 per cent of the defence budget.

Pointing out that China was spending some 20 per cent, and the US 16 per cent of their defence budgets on R&D, Saraswat said, “Developing world-class military technologies would require an R&D allocation of minimum 10% of the defence budget.”

Besides enhanced funding, Saraswat outlined three important steps that the defence ministry (MoD) and the military needed to implement. Firstly, the military must plan ahead in order to allow the DRDO enough time to develop the equipment that soldiers need.

“The military cannot raise a new requirement and say that it must be imported immediately unless the DRDO delivers it in 18-24 months. Most complex defence systems take 7-8 years to develop and we must be allowed that time. Besides, we have seen that the time needed for importing a defence system is between 4-6 years. So the army must plan ahead,” says Saraswat.

As Business Standard has reported (Apr 13, 2013, “Ministry’s initiative to push indigenous development”) the forthcoming Defence Procurement Procedure of 2013 is likely to address this demand. DPP-2013 will require the military to provide the DRDO and Indian defence companies with adequate time to develop the equipment that it requires.

The second major change that the DRDO chief wants is for the armed forces to accept the concepts of “spiral development” and “capability based deployment” of equipment being developed.

“Spiral development” rests on the fact that that military equipment capabilities gradually improve as design and development continues. Saraswat explains that if the military wants a radar system that can detect enemy fighter aircraft 500 kilometres away, and the DRDO develops one that can see 300 kilometres, the military should accept and deploy that radar. While soldiers develop expertise in operating the radar and provide valuable feedback, the scientists would enhance the capability to 500 kilometres. “Capability based deployment” means bringing into operational use a “Mark I” radar, while a “Mark II” version, with better performance is developed.

The DRDO chief’s third recommendation for boosting indigenization is an investment fund through which the MoD can fund selected technology projects by private sector companies, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

“The fact is that private sector defence R&D is close to non-existent. We need a venture capital investment system, which will fund and promote research and promote an R&D culture in these companies. We have to cover their risk,” says Saraswat.

There are several government models for funding private sector defence R&D, most notably in Israel, and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) model in the US, in which the Pentagon chooses from amongst futuristic projects that private sector players propose, and funds them even when there is no certainty of success.

A similar thought process is evident in the Kelkar Committee, which has recommended setting up a Defence Technology Development Fund, with a corpus of Rs 100 crore. So far the MoD has not taken any concrete steps to implement this.

Finally, the DRDO chief would like the setting up of Defence Equipment Manufacturing Zones, on the lines of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), where defence industries benefit from quality infrastructure, funding and locational synergy. In Pune, a group of electronics companies have set up the Defence Electronics Manufacturers’ Association (DEMA).

“Defence electronics is an advanced field which requires special qualification and certification. DEMA is a successful experiment that has led to about 25-30 good defence industries coming up around Pune itself,” says Saraswat.
Broadsword: DRDO chief wants 7% of defence budget for R&D

 

[indian_foxhound]

they should have it. Fund nahi hai project kafi jade hai

 

[sudhir007]

first time i agree with him. we dnt have any history for deveoping any indigenous weapon, so we need more money on r & d

 

[Yogi]

IMO we should increase our R&D budget not only in defense but other sectors too...

If we wanna become independent n progressive then R&D is a must, we r way behind China, SK, Japan, etc. in terms of % of GDP spent on R&D...

 

[neehar]

for a country of our size we cant depend on imports permanantly..lets hope govt encourages this

 

[Ajaxpaul]

Now he can get 10-15 %...but then he has to walk the talk.

I prefer DRDO broken down to 3 or 4 Small organisation so that they can work on different systems effectively.

But i think even if we give 100% of the defence budget, nothing will come out because, there is minimum accountability. Their jobs are safe since its a govt entity, so why work hard ???

 

[joekrish]

Fair deal, should be given but on strict supervision.

 

[Pulsar]

The DRDO is a black hole. No one knows where and how the funds are being spent. The mutts at the helm mostly consist of retired bureaucrats who have licked the ^sses of their political bosses to get plum posts in the organization. Heck, they aren't even scientists or engineers! Nepotism, politics, and boot-licking is the order of the day.

First the DRDO needs radical systemic changes before the government even thinks throwing more tax payers money into this sinkhole.

 

[IND151]

DRDO chief wants 7% of defence budget for R&D

With Defence Minister AK Antony demanding that less weaponry be imported and a greater percentage of India’s military requirements be developed and built in the country, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) wants a significantly higher budget and has spelt out a three-fold roadmap for indigenization.

In an exclusive interview to Business Standard, DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat, who is also Scientific Advisor to the Raksha Mantri, has said that DRDO’s funding must be raised from the current 5.2 per cent of defence expenditure to at least 7-8% of the defence budget.

“We need a minimum of 7-8% of the defence budget to successfully deliver the systems that the armed forces need. The current gap of 2% of defence budget will have a serious impact, forcing us to prioritize between our development projects,” says Saraswat.

The DRDO’s allocation of Rs 10,610 crore for 2013-14, would have been higher by Rs 3,650 crore if it had been allocated 7 per cent of the defence budget. The DRDO’s highest funding levels were in 2007, when it received 6.2 per cent of the defence budget.

Pointing out that China was spending some 20 per cent, and the US 16 per cent of their defence budgets on R&D, Saraswat said, “Developing world-class military technologies would require an R&D allocation of minimum 10% of the defence budget.”

Besides enhanced funding, Saraswat outlined three important steps that the defence ministry (MoD) and the military needed to implement. Firstly, the military must plan ahead in order to allow the DRDO enough time to develop the equipment that soldiers need.

“The military cannot raise a new requirement and say that it must be imported immediately unless the DRDO delivers it in 18-24 months. Most complex defence systems take 7-8 years to develop and we must be allowed that time. Besides, we have seen that the time needed for importing a defence system is between 4-6 years. So the army must plan ahead,” says Saraswat.

As Business Standard has reported (Apr 13, 2013, “Ministry’s initiative to push indigenous development”) the forthcoming Defence Procurement Procedure of 2013 is likely to address this demand. DPP-2013 will require the military to provide the DRDO and Indian defence companies with adequate time to develop the equipment that it requires.

The second major change that the DRDO chief wants is for the armed forces to accept the concepts of “spiral development” and “capability based deployment” of equipment being developed.

“Spiral development” rests on the fact that that military equipment capabilities gradually improve as design and development continues. Saraswat explains that if the military wants a radar system that can detect enemy fighter aircraft 500 kilometres away, and the DRDO develops one that can see 300 kilometres, the military should accept and deploy that radar. While soldiers develop expertise in operating the radar and provide valuable feedback, the scientists would enhance the capability to 500 kilometres. “Capability based deployment” means bringing into operational use a “Mark I” radar, while a “Mark II” version, with better performance is developed.

The DRDO chief’s third recommendation for boosting indigenization is an investment fund through which the MoD can fund selected technology projects by private sector companies, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

“The fact is that private sector defence R&D is close to non-existent. We need a venture capital investment system, which will fund and promote research and promote an R&D culture in these companies. We have to cover their risk,” says Saraswat.

There are several government models for funding private sector defence R&D, most notably in Israel, and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) model in the US, in which the Pentagon chooses from amongst futuristic projects that private sector players propose, and funds them even when there is no certainty of success.

A similar thought process is evident in the Kelkar Committee, which has recommended setting up a Defence Technology Development Fund, with a corpus of Rs 100 crore. So far the MoD has not taken any concrete steps to implement this.

Finally, the DRDO chief would like the setting up of Defence Equipment Manufacturing Zones, on the lines of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), where defence industries benefit from quality infrastructure, funding and locational synergy. In Pune, a group of electronics companies have set up the Defence Electronics Manufacturers’ Association (DEMA).

“Defence electronics is an advanced field which requires special qualification and certification. DEMA is a successful experiment that has led to about 25-30 good defence industries coming up around Pune itself,” says Saraswat.
Broadsword: DRDO chief wants 7% of defence budget for R&D

I agree with him

5.2 % of defense budget is equal to 1.9448 billion dollars(budget is 37.4% billion dollar)

this is not enough

 

[IND151]

The DRDO is a black hole. No one knows where and how the funds are being spent. The mutts at the helm mostly consist of retired bureaucrats who have licked the ^sses of their political bosses to get plum posts in the organization. Heck, they aren't even scientists or engineers! Nepotism, politics, and boot-licking is the order of the day.

First the DRDO needs radical systemic changes before the government even thinks throwing more tax payers money into this sinkhole.

agreed. DRDO has to be far more efficient

 

[Dillinger]

@sancho @S-DUCT @sandy_3126 @arp2041 All of its one sided, no? I agree with the ideas

1) Spiral development of systems, it has been a norm the world over. BUT IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE BASE PRODUCT IS NOT DELAYED TOO MUCH! A red line must be drawn- and a "last date of submission" system instituted for completion of the project.

2) An Investment Fund like the Defence Technology Development Fund from revitalizing the MSMEs and getting them into R&D.

3) Setting up STEP, TBI and SEZs for the private sector companies in defense.

BUT there is NO mention of much needed changes, reforms and even restructuring required in DRDO itself.

Please provide some insight into your views about both- the stated proposals and the needed changes in DRDO itself.

 

[arp2041]

@Dillinger my recommendations would be:

1. Shift the HQ of DRDO from Delhi to some place in south (just like ISRO), that is where we get our pool of scientists.

2. Make it more autonomous just like ISRO. MoD holds an Iron Grip over DRDO & it's affairs.

3. As someone said earlier, Break the DRDO into 2-3 smaller organizations with each handling there areas of expertise, as it is TOO BIG to handle.

4. Yes, we spend too less money in Defense R&D (or for that matter, any R&D), but increasing budget will not change anything until & unless there isn't Accountability, ISRO on the one hand make it's all plans public, achieves them & even after achieving the stated objectives, doesn't boast about anything, For DRDO it's all opposite.

We look towards foreign organisations as to how our organisations should be, but we forget that we have one of the best space agencies in the world, Govt. Owned & PERFORMING.

You don't see those words in the same sentence in India, do you??

ISRO is Obviously doing something right, why not apply this models in other organisations as well??

Is ISRO budget huge?? Nope, it's just 0.00065% of our GDP. Even than, they are making India proud with every Project they take.

So, Obviously MONEY isn't an ISSUE here.

 

[MilSpec]

@sancho @S-DUCT @sandy_3126 @arp2041 All of its one sided, no? I agree with the ideas

1) Spiral development of systems, it has been a norm the world over. BUT IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE BASE PRODUCT IS NOT DELAYED TOO MUCH! A red line must be drawn- and a "last date of submission" system instituted for completion of the project.

2) An Investment Fund like the Defence Technology Development Fund from revitalizing the MSMEs and getting them into R&D.

3) Setting up STEP, TBI and SEZs for the private sector companies in defense.

BUT there is NO mention of much needed changes, reforms and even restructuring required in DRDO itself.

Please provide some insight into your views about both- the stated proposals and the needed changes in DRDO itself.

India should allocate 10-15% of it's defence budget for RESEARCH, But not just for DRDO
Oversight committee is the answer, the committee formed with the comptroller and auditor general of India (to give keep in mind the track record of the agency), all three military chiefs, defense minister, the research grant for a project should be based on merit and potential and detailed feasibility analysis of the proposal. recipients could be DRDO, HAL, BEL, BHEL, GSRE, Mazgaon dock, CSL, JNPT, L&T, Mahindra defense systems, Tata Defense systems, IIT's, NIT's

There needs to be level playing field in Research funding, DRDO needs to slug it out with everyone else in the market, and MoD should stop playing Favorites.

Edit:
As far as structure of DRDO is concerned, i am not sure of it's structure and how it internally allocates it's funds or it's internal audits for project management, hence I wont comment on their restructuring. There isn't enough data available in the public sphere to make any educated judgement on this, hence i would at this point give the benefit of the doubt to DRDO on their capabilities, but there is a serious question mark on thier project management skills from thier track record of delivery!

 

[MilSpec]

@Dillinger my recommendations would be:

1. Shift the HQ of DRDO from Delhi to some place in south (just like ISRO), that is where we get our pool of scientists.

In this day and age, i dont think the location of hq matters, and i am not very sure about the where our scientist originate from. there is no data to specify certain parts of the country produces superior intellect to other, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter. Ford manufactures it's cars in detroit and it's research center is in orange county.

2. Make it more autonomous just like ISRO. MoD holds an Iron Grip over DRDO & it's affairs.

MoD hold what now? DRDO projects are barely accountable, every year CAG slams them for waste.

3. As someone said earlier, Break the DRDO into 2-3 smaller organizations with each handling there areas of expertise, as it is TOO BIG to handle.

There isn't enough data to support that, this idea of breaking an organisation with diversified product line into multiple factions is actually sweeping the dirt under the rug. There is a need to acknowledge the problem of design management, PLM, and project delivery process and corrective actions need to be taken. In many cases there are quite a few scientists elevated to management positions, right people for the right job, when you task scientists with management, you are wasting usefull resources and also providing under performing managers. Right management, with high quality technicians engineers and scinetists with the right leader ship can easily turn drdo around with all it's existing product lines. DRDO is already divided into mulitple labs like arde, lrde, drl, drm xyz etc

4. Yes, we spend too less money in Defense R&D (or for that matter, any R&D), but increasing budget will not change anything until & unless there isn't Accountability, ISRO on the one hand make it's all plans public, achieves them & even after achieving the stated objectives, doesn't boast about anything, For DRDO it's all opposite.

There needs to be more money spent on research but not just limited to DRDO projects, include, gsre, ldl, csl, tata, l&T mahindra, IIT,, ets.

We look towards foreign organisations as to how our organisations should be, but we forget that we have one of the best space agencies in the world, Govt. Owned & PERFORMING.

Depends on what is your comparison standard too, no doubt ISRO has good performance, but whom are we comparing that performance to?

You don't see those words in the same sentence in India, do you??

actually you do, GAIL, ONGC, Petronet, Bongaingaon refinery (now ongc), NTPC, mazgaon dock, IIT, BARC, etc. There is no reason to put PSU's down, they have done a wonderful job of assimilating technology, providing employment, remaining profitable and saving import costs to the nation.

ISRO is Obviously doing something right, why not apply this models in other organisations as well??

I am not sure of the model, if you could elaborate more on the model, then may be I might understand better, what exactly is the ISRO model, how does it differ from other organisation structures?

Is ISRO budget huge?? Nope, it's just 0.00065% of our GDP. Even than, they are making India proud with every Project they take.

Again what metrics are seen in their projects, I am not aware exactly how much is ISRO's budget, how much of subsytems of ISRO is developed by themselves etc. I am not sure there is enough data in the public sphere to analyse the workings of ISRO or DRDO

So, Obviously MONEY isn't an ISSUE here.

Sorry friend, I beg to disagree, Money is, has and will always remain a huge issue!

 

[S-DUCT]

@sancho @S-DUCT @sandy_3126 @arp2041 All of its one sided, no? I agree with the ideas

1) Spiral development of systems, it has been a norm the world over. BUT IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE BASE PRODUCT IS NOT DELAYED TOO MUCH! A red line must be drawn- and a "last date of submission" system instituted for completion of the project.

2) An Investment Fund like the Defence Technology Development Fund from revitalizing the MSMEs and getting them into R&D.

3) Setting up STEP, TBI and SEZs for the private sector companies in defense.

BUT there is NO mention of much needed changes, r


Please provide some insight into your views about both- the stated proposals and the needed changes in DRDO itself.

My recommendation are:
1)As Ajaxpaul said,we need to increase accountability of not just DRDO but HAL also.Just like ISRO they should be accountable to PMO.

2)Most important,ALL PSU's should be fined if they fail to deliver projects at signed time.

3)DRDO should help building private defence industry by sharing key TOTs.SpaceX an US based privated aerospace industry received lots of help from NASA to develope SCE.ISRO has already done this many times.