Indian AWACS Reloaded: Competition For 6 Aircraft Announced

[sancho]

@sancho In short DRDO has become a joke

I don't mind having visions for the future, but dreaming only and not delivering any fighter, UAV, AWACS aircraft after decades of development is not the right way, especially when this makes Indias defence more vulnerable.

 

[MilSpec]

@sancho ; What ever happened to logistical nightmares of IAF due to different platforms for the same job?

 

[sancho]

@sancho ; What ever happened to logistical nightmares of IAF due to different platforms for the same job?

Are you asking this to DRDO? Since this is their development and not IAFs, just like DRDO wants AMCA and not IAF.

 

[MilSpec]

Are you asking this to DRDO? Since this is their development and not IAFs, just like DRDO wants AMCA and not IAF.

are u sayin, iaf soesn't endorse this one too... maybe IAF should build it's own planes from now on.

 

[sancho]

are u sayin, iaf soesn't endorse this one too... maybe IAF should build it's own planes from now on.

They take what is beneficiary for them, just as the former Air chief said about DRDO and AMCA "let them build it and then we will see if it's 5th gen", till then IAF remains with no interest. In this case it's not different. IF DRDO can come up with a useful system, that fits IAFs requirements, why should they mind it? The fact however is, that they haven't stated a requirement for the AWACS India, it is proposed by DRDO! That's where you see one of the big problems, the unbalance in what is needed to defend the country and what the PSUs want to develop, just like a 2nd basic trainer in the same class as the PC7 is not needed, only because HAL wants to develop it.

 

[MilSpec]

They take what is beneficiary for them, just as the former Air chief said about DRDO and AMCA "let them build it and then we will see if it's 5th gen", till then IAF remains with no interest. In this case it's not different. IF DRDO can come up with a useful system, that fits IAFs requirements, why should they mind it? The fact however is, that they haven't stated a requirement for the AWACS India, it is proposed by DRDO! That's where you see one of the big problems, the unbalance in what is needed to defend the country and what the PSUs want to develop, just like a 2nd basic trainer in the same class as the PC7 is not needed, only because HAL wants to develop it.

So should there be an agency that ensures there is consistent synergy between the D-PSU's and the armed services... Say an hypothetical agency that the armed forces reports to and which also manages macro level workings of the D-PSU's and directs them?

So that these organisations build exactly what is needed by the armed forces.

And if there exists such an organisation, for such grave failures such as :
>DPSU's not building stuff that is mandated by armed forces, or
>massive corruption in both the armed forces procurements and DPSU's procurement and license production
>Institutional inaction that escalates safety risks
>Jeopardizing national security by procurement of substandard equipment for defence establishments

Should such agency be held accountable?

Edit: Hint: Ministry of Defence

 

[sancho]

So should there be an agency that ensures there is consistent synergy between the D-PSU's and the armed services...

Again you are catching it from the wrong end! If the forces have a requirement, they will forward it to the MoD and to the PSUs anyway, so that is not the issue. The other side is the problems, when PSUs start creating demands that doesn't exist and decide on their own what is necessary and what is not. Just like there is a problem of including the forces from the begining to these kind of project A to share responsibility, B to have a better understanding of what the forces really wants and needs. In most cases as we have seen, the forces will be asked for basic requirements, the PSU starts developing without having the forces directly being included. Then you see things like Arjun, that required so many changes...
Also creating another agency in between means only more bureaucracy and I thought you want less of it?

1) PSUs, stop dreaming only and work closer with the forces and according to their needs
2) Forces, stop taking bribes and work closer with PSUs
3) MoD, take PSUs and Forces at a shorter leash, take them accountable for development failures or corruption, increase efficiency in your own systems, further improve co-developments and JVs with private partners

Blaming each other won't help anybody, they all have to do their own work better then they do it today!

 

[MilSpec]

Again you are catching it from the wrong end! If the forces have a requirement, they will forward it to the MoD and to the PSUs anyway, so that is not the issue. The other side is the problems, when PSUs start creating demands that doesn't exist and decide on their own what is necessary and what is not. Just like there is a problem of including the forces from the begining to these kind of project A to share responsibility, B to have a better understanding of what the forces really wants and needs. In most cases as we have seen, the forces will be asked for basic requirements, the PSU starts developing without having the forces directly being included. Then you see things like Arjun, that required so many changes...
Also creating another agency in between means only more bureaucracy and I thought you want less of it?

1) PSUs, stop dreaming only and work closer with the forces and according to their needs
2) Forces, stop taking bribes and work closer with PSUs
3) MoD, take PSUs and Forces at a shorter leash, take them accountable for development failures or corruption, increase efficiency in your own systems, further improve co-developments and JVs with private partners

Blaming each other won't help anybody, they all have to do their own work better then they do it today!

Dude,

I am not talking about creating another agency,,,, the entire existence of MoD is to ensure the need of the armed forces are met, DPSU's are managed and directed correctly, there is transparency in procurement, and there is process ensure safety of our armed forces.

MOD is supposed to do all that I said in the last post, and nothing is being done,

Grab some coffee, you didn't catch the sarcasm

 

[sancho]

Dude,

I am not talking about creating another agency,,,, the entire existence of MoD is to ensure the need of the armed forces are met, DPSU's are managed and directed correctly, there is transparency in procurement, and there is process ensure safety of our armed forces.

MOD is supposed to do all that I said in the last post, and nothing is being done,

Grab some coffee, you didn't catch the sarcasm

But still leave out the responsibilities of the PSUs.

 

[MilSpec]

But still leave out the responsibilities of the PSUs.

My take is simple:
For every kickback procurement deal : Kick out officer incharge in MoD
For every low grade procurement that doesn't meet requirements including those from PSU's: kick out officer incharge in MoD and Manager in the PSU
For delays in development of indigenous product: kick out Officer incharge in MoD, Project manager and transfer/demote the project leader
For Kickbacks in direct purchase by armed forces: Court Marshall the officer.
and finally
for gross negligence, institutional inaction and shortfalls in deadlines of projects and procurement across the board: Kick out the minister, (not just in defence but also in oil and gas, power, mining, finance, Industry, agriculture, irrigation, aviation)

 

[ejaz007]

Surya’s Chariots: India’s AWACS Programs

Latest Update:

March 31/14: AWACS RFP. India puts out a tender inviting bids by July 15/14 for the “supply of suitable aircraft with necessary structural modifications, power and endurance adaptations…. “equipment installation/installation provisions for the AWACS India role”. The 10m rotodome and support on the airframe is obviously the most critical modification, and design and certification work will be part of that tender work. Sources: Flight Global, “India scans for new AWACS platform”.

January 2014: DRDO AWACS. India Strategic offers interesting updates regarding India’s full-size AWACS program (q.v. June 19/12, Jan 26/13, March 4/13). An interview with DRDO chief Dr. Avinash Chander reveals that India has chosen a rotating radar dome for its full-size AWACS, using a radar that will also be electronically steered (Electronically Scanned Array). That choice was reportedly driven by their goal of 360 degree coverage. The flip side is that space requirements for the radar and its systems are so large that they’re looking at the Boeing 767 and Airbus A330 as carrier platforms. They could also build on the IL-76 that carries the current Phalcon system, but DRDO is leaning toward civilian platforms that can leverage commercial maintenance ecosystems. Boeing (Japan’s E-767) has an AWACS conversion in service, but Airbus doesn’t.

2020 is DRDO’s target date, though their record in that regard isn’t inspiring. They still need to freeze specifications, obtain multiple layers of government approval, invite expressions of interest, and then successfully carry out an RFP, selection, and contract negotiations. Sources: India Strategic, “India developing AWACS”.

Surya’s Chariots: India’s AWACS Programs

 

[Informant]

Why dont India makes its own? You guys are rich as ****. This seems like a good opportunity dont you think?

 

[jarves]

Why dont India makes its own? You guys are rich as ****. This seems like a good opportunity dont you think?

We are not rich.We are trying to build ourselves.

 

[Informant]

We are not rich.We are trying to build ourselves.

Come on a military budget of $40+ BILLION dollars and not rich? Trying to build? Nope. At this rate China will steam roll ahead and I believe this much hardware is to counter the Chinese hegemony rather than Pakistan which you have covered already.

We are not rich and trying to make up for it.

 

[janon]

Why dont India makes its own? You guys are rich as ****. This seems like a good opportunity dont you think?

Money can't develop everything. If that were the case, Saudi Arabia wouldn't buy E-3s from the USA, China wouldn't buy anything from Russia and so on.

We are making two different AWACS by ourselves, only the platform is foreign. The lower tiered AWACS have been developed already, and mounted on Emb-145s, and are being tested. They will be handed over to the IAF this year. This news is about a higher performing AEWACS we wish to make in future. It makes no sense to develop an aircraft as well to mount it, when we will only need a handful of them, and big companies already have made thousands of aircrafts fulfilling the criteria. In short, it is senseless to develop a 747 just to mount three or four AEWACS.