What's new

DRDO: More failures than successes.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Government Auditor Faults Tejas Light Combat Aircraft Project, Says it Fails to Meet Air Force's Needs
NEW DELHI: India's Tejas Light Combat Aircraft project, in the works for over three decades, came under severe criticism from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on Friday, which said the Mark-I version has several shortcomings and does not meet IAF specifications.

Not only that, Indian Air Force (IAF) would be "constrained" to induct the fighter LCA without availability of a trainer model, thereby "adversely impacting pilot training", the audit body said in a report tabled in Parliament.


The CAG noted that it was due to the delay in the manufacture and supply of LCA that IAF had to go for alternative temporary measures such as upgrading its MIG BIS, MiG-29, Jaguar, and Mirage aircraft at a cost of Rs. 20,037 crore and revise the phasing out of MiG-21s.

Listing the shortcomings, the CAG said that the LCA Mark-I fails to meet the electronic warfare capabilities sought by IAF as the Self-Protection Jammer could not be fitted on the aircraft due to space constraints.

Also, it said that the Radar Warning Receiver/Counter Measure Dispensing System fitted on the aircraft had raised performance concerns which are yet to be overcome (January 2015).

The LCA Mark-I, which got Initial Operational Clearance in December, 2013, significantly falls short (20 permanent waivers/33 temporary concessions) in meeting the Air Staff Requirement (ASR), the CAG said, adding that that has led to reduced operational capabilities and survivability and, consequently, its operational employability.

It added that the shortcomings in the Mark-I (increased weight, reduced internal fuel capacity, non-compliance of fuel system protection, pilot protection from front, reduced speed) are expected to be overcome in the Mark-II model.

"LCA Mark-I does not meet the ASR. The deficiencies are now expected to be met in LCA Mark-II by December 2018," the CAG said.

While DRDO has always showcased LCA, christened Tejas, as an indigenously-developed aircraft and the indigenous content of the LCA was estimated by ADA to be 70 per cent, the CAG said it "actually worked out to about 35 per cent" as of January this year.

Systems such as Kaveri engine, Multi-Mode Radar, Radome, Multi-Functional Display System and Flight Control System Actuators taken up for indigenous development could not be developed successfully, resulting in LCA's continued dependence on the import of these systems, CAG said.

IAF had proposed in the early 1980s that a new aircraft be developed to replace the MiG-21 fleet, manufactured during 1966 and 1987, after its phasing out in the 1990s.

The project for indigenous design and development of LCA was sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs. 560 crore, which was enhanced from time to time up to Rs. 10,397.11 crore.

The government in June, 1984, constituted an Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) as a dedicated institution for the management of the LCA project.

IAF had issued Air Staff Requirement (ASR) in October, 1985, envisaging a light-weight multi-mission fighter with contemporary air combat and offensive air support capabilities and excellent manoeuvrability for close air combat at low and medium altitudes.

The projected requirement was for 220 Light Combat Aircraft (200 Fighters, 20 trainers) to be inducted by 1994.

However, LCA could only achieve Initial Operational Clearance in December, 2013, as against the earlier scheduled date of December, 2005.

The Full Operational Clearance (FOC), which was scheduled to be completed by December, 2008, is now slated to be achieved by December this year although experts said even that could be delayed.

The CAG added that ADA's decision regarding the advance building of two prototypes from Full-Scale Engineering Development (FSED) Phase-II to FSED Phase-I so as to utilise its savings on the grounds of accelerating the development process of LCA had failed to yield the desired results.

This, the report said, was because preponed prototypes were deficient in terms of critical onboard systems (Multi- Mode Radar, Self-Protection Jammer, Radar Warning Receiver) and led to ADA using the Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft (meant for IAF use) towards flight testing/evaluation of these critical on board systems.

"This was in contravention of the Cabinet approval (November, 2001) for phased development of the prototypes in FSED Phase-II after Technical Demonstrators had been built and flight tested for 210 hours," CAG said.

Talking about lack of trainer aircraft, the audit body said that IAF was in the interim using an upgraded Full Mission Simulator (FMS) at ADA for pilot training, pending supply of an FMS by HAL at the LCA operating base.

It said that the long gestation period led to a change of weapon systems on LCA, necessitating the acquisition of new ones.

"That led to design changes on the aircraft, coupled with delay in integrating R-73E missile with Multi-Mode Radar/ Helmet Mounted Display and Sight. Delayed identification (December, 2009) of Beyond Visual Range Missiles also contributed to the delays in achieving IOC/FOC by LCA," the report said.
Government Auditor Faults Tejas Light Combat Aircraft Project, Says it Fails to Meet Air Force's Needs



Kindly post some major success of DRDO

'LCA Tejas likely to be ready for operational service by 2015' | Business Standard


The much-delayed indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas aircraft is expected to be ready for induction into operational service by 2015, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne said today.

Talking to reporters, the IAF chief said the indigenous aircraft will have to be modified further for operating in high-altitude areas as recently during trials in Leh, its engine "did not work".

"By my estimate it (the Initial Operational Clearance II) should be by the end of this year and the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) should take another year-and-half more," he said on the sidelines of a seminar.
The FOC is the final nod required before an aircraft is considered to be ready for operational deployment in an air force. While the IOC I of the LCA Tejas was completed two years ago, but the FOC date has been postponed due to certain issues.
Browne said delays do take place in a development project such as the LCA. "Recently we went for high-altitude trials. The engine (of LCA) did not work at that altitude because it is a different cup of tea. Even the Su-30, when it was taken to Leh, it had to be modified. So, the LCA will have to be modified. It has to do the retrials," he said.

The IAF chief said the aircraft will take part in the exercise 'Ironfist', which will be held at Pokharan in Rajasthan on February 22.

"There it will be firing the R-73 missile along with laser guided bombs etc. But a lot more work is still required," he said.

Earlier at an international seminar here, DRDO chief V K Saraswat said the LCA had completed 2,000 test flights.

At the same seminar, Browne said the IAF is planning to induct around 350-400 aircraft in the 12th Defence Plan period.

The air force is planning to procure more than 200 fighter aircraft including the 126 Rafale medium-multirole combat aircraft, over 40 Su-30MKIs, several types of transport aircraft and various choppers, he said.

Listing the major modernisation milestones achieved by the air force, he said the IAF signed 325 contract worth Rs 1.52 lakh crore for modernising the force.

"Of these, 217 contracts worth around Rs 84,000 crore have been signed with Indian companies," the IAF chief said.

In 2013-14, the IAF is planning to sign several deals including one for 126 Rafale aircraft, additional six C-130J Super Hercules and several chopper contracts for attack and heavy-lift category, he said.

On the future requirements of the force, he said advanced active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, electronic warfare suites and unmanned combat aerial vehicles were the need of the force in the future.

The IAF chief said testing facilities of DRDO and defence PSUs should be opened up for private sector as they are national assets.

Source: LCA Tejas Engines failed during high-altitude trials in Leh

Tejas grounded after snag in landing gear
TEJAS.jpg

For almost 3,000 hours of flying, the made-in-India combat aircraft “Tejas” was a pilot’s delight, but within months of joining the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s fleet, these jets have been grounded because of nagging problems with their landing gear.

This major snag — the first since the military jet’s maiden flight in January 2001 — has showed up at a time when the country’s air strike wing is contemplating induction of 120 of them to make up for the depleting strength of its squadrons. With the Union government taking a decision to acquire only 36 Rafale fighters instead of 126 as originally planned under the multi-billion dollar, medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha has spoken of the need to add at least six squadrons (108 fighter aircraft) to shore up the total strength to 42 squadrons, and indicated his preference for an advanced version of “Tejas”.

Sources in the ministry of defence (MoD) told this newspaper that IAF pilots encountered problems with the landing gear of “Tejas” twice — first in Bengaluru and the second time in Jaisalmer after a round of weapon trials at the Pokhran range. The fighter was flown from Jaisalmer to Bengaluru with its landing gear deployed after the second incident. The upshot: the entire fleet consisting of fighters, the naval variant, trainers and prototypes have been grounded. “Occasionally, test pilots have attempted solo sorties, but the problem with the landing gear persists,” sources added.

Sources in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Bengaluru, confirmed that the snag has resulted in discontinuation of flights of these military jets but disclosed that the glitch would be fixed soon as the cause for malfunctioning of the landing gear has been identified.

The first “Tejas” combat jet was handed over to the IAF in Bengaluru on January 17, 2015, by defence minister Manohar Parrikar with the first squadron set to be based at an air force station in Sulur, Tamil Nadu.
Tejas grounded after snag in landing gear | The Asian Age


Rs 1,500 cr more for combat aircraft Tejas as HAL fails to meet targets
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has allocated an additional Rs 1,500 crore to the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme, boosting its projected Rs 14,047 crore budget. The additional amount will be spent on a production line for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to build 20 fighters that Indian Air Force (IAF) has ordered for its first Tejas squadron. The IAF has also promised another order for 20 more Tejas for its second squadron. Once the improved Mark II Tejas is developed, the IAF will field 6-7 Tejas squadrons (120-140 fighters).

This need for additional money arises from the inability of HAL, a public sector aerospace monopoly, to establish a production line that can build at least eight Tejas fighters a year. The production line that HAL set up two years ago on the priceless real estate that it holds in the heart of Bangalore has not yet produced a single Tejas fighter.

Briefing Business Standard the Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), P Subramanyam, who runs the LCA programme, explains that nobody realised that setting up a production line was a technology by itself. So far, ADA and HAL have built only prototypes and limited-series Tejas aircraft, producing individual parts one-by-one like a tailor making a suit. When HAL graduated to a standardised production line, it encountered serious difficulties.

“ADA and HAL have realised that creating a production line needs major effort… That realisation has come,” says Subramanyam.

So serious are the difficulties that ADA and HAL approached foreign aircraft manufacturers last year — including Eurofighter GmbH, which builds the Typhoon. The proposal to appoint a foreign consultant for the Tejas production line remains alive in the MoD.

Senior IAF officers express frustration that HAL has failed to set up a Tejas assembly line, though its primary activity for the preceding decades has been to build foreign aircraft on an assembly line under licence.

Air Marshal Pranab K Barbora, who retired as the IAF vice-chief two years ago, summarises the Air Force’s viewpoint: “HAL’s assembly line expertise is outdated by at least three decades. They have done nothing to upgrade their technology. Setting up a modern assembly line for the Tejas is far beyond HAL’s capabilities.”

Barbora says this is why the IAF lobbied hard to post a serving air marshal as HAL chief. Instead, the MoD appointed RK Tyagi, who has no experience in aeronautical development or manufacture.

Contacted repeatedly for comments, Tyagi did not respond to the calls.

ADA is defending HAL, with Subramanyam insisting that HAL would build the first 20 Tejas within two-and-a-half to three years. By then the fighter would have obtained final operational clearance (FOC) in its flight-testing programme and production can begin of the next 20 Tejas (which must be built to FOC standards).

This, says Subramanyam, will take another two-and-a-half years, i.e., be completed in 2018. By then, the Tejas Mark II will be tested and ready, and can enter series production.

What the ADA chief does not explain is: How will HAL, which cannot yet build even two Tejas fighters per year, build 20 fighters over the next three years?

The annual general meeting on Friday of ADA (which is a registered society under the MoD) was also clouded by delays in flight-testing, which Business Standard has reported, will delay the initial operational clearance (IOC) of the Tejas until mid-2013 at the earliest.

For the IAF, which contemplates dangerously depleted squadron numbers, the big question is: When will the first two Tejas squadrons become operational?

Going by the lack of energy in HAL — which is struggling to build the last two limited series fighters and the first two series production Tejas — the IAF might have a longer wait than it is comfortable with.
Rs 1,500 cr more for combat aircraft Tejas as HAL fails to meet targets | Business Standard News
Bhai mere can is it necessary to increae the font size and Bold, its difficult to read the post
 
@Ifrit has not posted anything bad about India or Indians. He posted an article written by an Indian journalist and which was published in an Indian newspaper. Instead of debating the contents of the article some posters have resorted to personal attacks. What is the need for that?

This is a public forum for discussion on military matters. Every aspect of military will be discussed and if need be then criticized. Those who cannot handle criticism should not take part in such discussions.

It is a fact that DRDO is a failure and it has failed to keep its commitments to the nation. There is nothing wrong in discussing the shortcomings of DRDO.
 
Bhai mere can is it necessary to increae the font size and Bold, its difficult to read the post
Did't do it intentionally.

@Ifrit has not posted anything bad about India or Indians. He posted an article written by an Indian journalist and which was published in an Indian newspaper. Instead of debating the contents of the article some posters have resorted to personal attacks. What is the need for that?

This is a public forum for discussion on military matters. Every aspect of military will be discussed and if need be then criticized. Those who cannot handle criticism should not take part in such discussions.

It is a fact that DRDO is a failure and it has failed to keep its commitments to the nation. There is nothing wrong in discussing the shortcomings of DRDO.
I intentionally posted only Indian author to avoid attacks on authors but it seems most of the Indian members don't like to go for a read but just rebuke what is posted because they like only success stories cooked by DRDO.
 
Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the light bulb". (The story is often told as 5,000 or 10,000 times depending on the version.) When asked about it,

Edison allegedly said, "I have not failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb."

The idea is that -- even if you try and fail, it doesn't mean that you didn't learn something.

Was Edison successfully discovering ways not to make bulb with his own money or did he waste public money a 1000 times?

Light bulb was an invention, a pioneering project. So it is understandable if a man fails even for ten thousand times.

DRDO is not working on anything new, it is not inventing anything and it is not pioneering any defence work. Then why is it failing so many times? LCA, Arjun both use imported engines as mentioned in the article. So how can these projects be called a success? Not only engines but all critical components had to be imported.

Tell DRDO to waste its own money and they can keep failing for a million times.
 
Dubai i met senior I.A retired officer in a bar out of many questions and discussions he reply me that DRDO and other organisations hijacked by south Indians and they always prefer to hire south Indian only which is the main reason of lack of competition within the organisation and a big reason of coruption he told me once army and air force officer grilled DRDO for the delays in Tejas they accepted failures even they are not confirmed or sure they ever build near perfect machines (Tejas & Arjun) they simply replied that they build technologies which are help in future developments even if the projects failed.
@Indian Patriot
 
The "Failure" That is DRDO
It’s official. The DRDO is a DODO. The Arjun tank is a no-show. The Tejas Light Combat Aircraft still is nowhere near completion in spite of being in development since 1983. The Prithvi missile is already obsolete. The Agni-III fell into the sea during its very first test. The air-force wouldn’t touch the Akash with a ten foot pole. India would certainly be better off without the DRDO, which has done nothing except consume ridiculous amounts of money with no positive output. At least this is what the Indian English-language media would have you believe. I am, of course, referring to the Indian Express’ eight-part exposé on the DRDO, which is one of the most stunning examples of journalistic crap I’ve seen coming from the Indian media in a long time. As if obfuscation and baseless comparisons weren’t enough, the Express has resorted to printing outright lies under the garb of investigative journalism. Because of lack of time and space, I’ve trashed only three of these articles in this post.

1) 6,000 cr wasted, 10-yr delay & they want 150,000 cr more

Quite unsurprisingly, the first article of the series is the standard anti-DRDO rant. It seems to me that the Indian Express has a bone to pick with the DRDO. They have apparently missed the plethora of projects that the DRDO has successfully delivered. The Agni Missiles, the Akash SAM's 3D Central Acquisition Radar, the Rajendra Radar (shown right), the Battlefield Surveillance Radar, the MiG-27 and Jaguar upgrades and the Samyukta and Sangraha Electronic Warfare systems are just a few examples of the DRDO's successful endeavours. This article only focuses on the negative aspects of the LCA and the Arjun.


Moeover, the way Amitav Ranjan and Shiv Aroor have compared the DRDO to its Chinese counterparts just goes to show how little they know about defence research in India. It is not the DRDO’s fault that the government doesn’t pour millions of dollars into defence research, as the Chinese do. It is not the DRDO’s fault that the Air Force and Army want world-class products that are also inexpensive and able to keep up with their whimsical requirements.


2) Armed Forces wait as showpiece missiles are unguided, way off mark
Ranjan and Aroor claim that “former deputy director of the Prithvi project and now DRDO’s chief controller of missiles and strategic systems Dr. V. K. Saraswat’s report RCI/PGT/PGM/1 admits: “Accuracy of missiles like Prithvi is acceptable in surface-to-surface theatre role, but precision strike without collateral damage is not possible with this system.”” I simply cannot bring myself to believe that someone of Dr. Saraswat’s stature could make such a childish statement. Ballistic missiles aren’t designed for precision strike. Their precision is measured in terms of the Circular Error Probable (CEP), which is defined as the radius of a circle into which a missile will land at least half the time. And the CEP of the Prithvi-I (10-75 metres) and Prithvi-II are comparable to similar missiles. The job of precision strike is better left to the precision guided munitions fielded by the Air Force and cruise missiles.

Also notice the way they imply that the Agni-III is a failure, because it “plunged into the sea after just five minutes of flight in July”. What they don’t mention is that such high-tech missiles do fail on their first test flights, as the American MX-774, or Russia’s latestBulava SLBM did. That is certainly not a reason to just give up on their development, because, last I knew, no country was ready to violate the Missile Technology Control Regime to provide India with a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

Another ridiculous claim by the two journalists is about how “an exasperated IAF, which calls Phase-I user trials (of the Akash SAM) unsatisfactory, has decided to buy Israeli Spyder missile systems instead”. This, when it is known that the short-ranged Spyder is supposed to make up for the lack of the Trishul.

But this one takes the cake: “Saraswat’s report calls for integrating Nag’s seeker with Prithvi to make the latter a precision-guided munition (PGM) but that hasn’t worked either”. Anyone with basic knowledge of missile guidance would know that simply bolting an IIR seeker of an anti-tank missile onto a hulking big ballistic missile which flies many times faster and wishing it would turn it into a fantabulously cool PGM is nothing short of stupid.




3) Arjun, Main Battle Tanked
This article is a perfect example of how, through selective reporting and obfuscation, one can trash a perfectly fine product, and make it look inferior to what can be bought in the Chor Bazaar for half the price. The two “journalists”, while glibly proclaiming how “the T-90, a far superior tank, can kill the Arjun”don’t elaborate on exactly how they arrived at this conclusion.I suppose they have access to the results of Arjun v/s T-90 tests in different scenarios, because, as a professional journalist, I would have balked at making such apparently baseless statements without solid proof. But then again, this is the Indian media we are talking about. They claim that the Arjun weighs much more than the T-90 without attempting to explain where all the extra weight comes from. My logic tells me that the Arjun has heavier and superior armour. So do manyreputed publications. Maybe the American M1A1, the German Leopard-II, and the British Challenger-II are horrible tanks too. In fact, they are even heavier than the Arjun! But the Pakistani Al-Khalid, being the lighter tank, is obviously superior! Going by that logic, the answer to our troubles lies in (hold your breath) the venerable Maruti-800! It has everything the DDM claims the Arjun lacks. It is cheap, mobile, light, air-conditioned, and nimbler than the vaunted T-90. Plus, with our present railway infrastructure we can easily carry it to border areas. Sure, the Arjun trounces the Maruti-800 (and the T-90) when it comes to sheer firepower, armour, crew protection, crew comfort, and electronics. But since when have these things been important?
The Express also makes a big fuss about how the temperature inside the Arjun reaches an “abnormal” 55 degrees. But it fails to mention the reason why this happens. After all, the DRDO had offered an air-conditioned Arjun to the Army, but the latter rejected the idea. So, is the temperature problem the fault of the Army or the DRDO? And the T-90 has faced problems with high interior temperatures too - its thermal imagers packed up in the blistering heat of the Thar. It was unable to fire theReflecks missile until quite recently. The engine had its own problems. So why was it accepted with such alacrity? Why was it not subject to rigorous testing the way the Arjun was? Why was the Arjun supposed to be a tank that was heavily armoured, comfortable, fast, small, light, and cheap at the same time? Why was it subjected to continuously changing goalposts? Why does everyone seem to suffer from memory loss when one mentions how the initial requirements, which called for a relatively simple 40-ton tank to replace the Vijayanta, were changed when Pakistan decided to acquire the formidable M1A1 Abrams? Maybe Ranjan and Aroor, in their infinite wisdom, would like to tell us how the DRDO (or anyone else for that matter) can design such a tank in a short span of time.


Generally speaking, the writers seem to have spent all their time coming up with creative titles for each part of the series, rather than doing what they are paid to do – report the facts as they are. Adding insult to injury is the fact the Indian Express has spoken of DRDO's apparently non-existent accountablity, while they themselves are accountable to no one. The DRDO will not sue them for libel. The goverment will make a few noises about how things have to be improved. The educated public, which knows squat about defence, will feel proud of our “free” and “empowered” media, which in reality, thrives on lies, half-truths, and sensationalism. All of which reminds me of the Michael Jackson number, “Tabloid Junkie


It’s slander
You say it's not a sword
But with your pen you torture men
You'd crucify the Lord


MiG Alley: The "Failure" That is DRDO

Thomas Edison the one who invented the Bulb says I haven't failed 1000 times instead I just found 1000 ways that do not work.

Now instead of copy pasting the the articles of the Indian blogger and indian writers, why don't you take up one weapon at a time and present your analysis of the deficiencies with values, shortfalls with facts and the minimum requirement of Indian Army and its comparison PA minimum requirement.
 
DRDO is just an organization...but Pakistan as a country is failing. Seems like you have a lot more to worry than us.
Sir we are not discussing Pakistan out off topic posts consider trolling and will be reported.

Thomas Edison the one who invented the Bulb says I haven't failed 1000 times instead I just found 1000 ways that do not work.

Now instead of copy pasting the the articles of the Indian blogger and indian writers, why don't you take up one weapon at a time and present your analysis of the deficiencies with values, shortfalls with facts and the minimum requirement of Indian Army and its comparison PA minimum requirement.
If you look i did it first Tejas and then Arjun and expecting reasonable arguments and technical details in articles but it seems no body is interested.
 
Dubai i met senior I.A retired officer in a bar out of many questions and discussions he reply me that DRDO and other organisations hijacked by south Indians and they always prefer to hire south Indian only which is the main reason of lack of competition within the organisation and a big reason of coruption he told me once army and air force officer grilled DRDO for the delays in Tejas they accepted failures even they are not confirmed or sure they ever build near perfect machines (Tejas & Arjun) they simply replied that they build technologies which are help in future developments even if the projects failed.
@Indian Patriot

It is not about south Indians. It is the lack of professionalism and no accountability.

A DRDO scientist has job security and unlimited funding. They can take any amount of time for a defence project and they will face no criticism or cuts in budget. A DRDO scientist can spend 35 years of his career doing nothing but sitting in the canteen and gossiping with his colleagues and he will still get his salary, his promotion and other perks of the job.

Such an organisation cannot contribute anything useful to the country.
 
@Ifrit Op is CH*T. plain and simple. yes thats in BOLD LETTERS. i know you had to work so hard to get these titles and post in Indian forum only to be debunked so badly..
DRDO in your language may be a failure.. what about your own country?? Pakistan comes in 13th FAILED COUNTRY in the WORLD according to latest Wiki report.
Forget Drdo.. hows your SUPARCO doing ??? bunch of madrassa illiterates.. make a moped engine first than come here rant about us..
 
1. AGNI Missiles (Still Not operational)
2. Submarine launched K-Series missiles (Still Not operational)
3. Akash SAMs Failed Project i will post this also
4. Pinaka MRBL Failed already mentioned above
5. Dhanush Artillery Failed will post source
6. AWACS No one knows but only you
7. Surveillance radar.No one knows but only you
8. Fire control radar.No one knows but only you
9. Weapons locating radar No one knows but only you
10. Sonars No one knows but only you
11. Anti tank missiles Nag Failed
12. Dhruv helicopter. Every knows the quality
13. Rudra helicopter Every knows the quality
14. Kolkata class destroyer Every knows the quality
15. Kamortara class ASuW Frigate Every knows the quality

@waz @Manticore

The old, tired and obvious response from every ignorant poster. Can't refute with facts so abuse the article itself.

Haha,refute the facts ? 'Facts' like Agni is unreliable :omghaha:
 
Sir we are not discussing Pakistan out off topic posts consider trolling and will be reported.


If you look i did it first Tejas and then Arjun and expecting reasonable arguments and technical details in articles but it seems no body is interested.
Well our yardstick of success and failure is much different from yours. So i think it is better to stick with what you know. We dont induct half baked and under performing products into our military like yours because you dont have money to pay. And we can afford to have a lot of pet projects...and yeah you are too new to this stuff. And you can report it for all i care as this whole thread is a troll bait started by you. So it is going to be cloased down sooner or later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom