Major DRDO projects behind schedule: Antony

[Dash]

@sancho
The topic is about DRDO.
I dont have any soft corner for ADA, because they seriously overestimated their capabilities for LCA and now they are planing AMCA!!, which I agree with you and if anyone is blaming IAF for this then I would say its a big mistake.

I will still blame IA for not soppurting the Arjun MBT, for not supporting the Pinaka like they should have. Actually Arjun MBT was a major morale boster for DRDO, it was their first venture outside missile complex. The trust of end user is key to any project's success. Look at the Bofors artillery, the Army showed interest and then its is ready!!!..

Noww DRDO has teh confidence that Army will buy it in numbers and they I am sure they will further develope it. They also had success in CABS-DRDO AWACS as there is a certain guarantee that IAF will go for it.

It depends on both parties, always.

 

[sancho]

@sancho
The topic is about DRDO.
I dont have any soft corner for ADA, because they seriously overestimated their capabilities for LCA and now they are planing AMCA!!, which I agree with you and if anyone is blaming IAF for this then I would say its a big mistake.

Personally I see DRDO as the bigger problem, since they promise too much and deliver too less and they also are the leader in pushing for new developments now, see AMCA, AWACS India, Aura, or even the recent claims about an own VIP helicopter. Whenever Mr. Saraswath steps infront of the media, he comes up with a new development, but where is he when want infos about the current developments?
ADA and HAL seems to have problems in the design, which is a critical problem for Indians aero field as well, but the project management of ADA in LCA was horrific too, I bet HAL would have done it better and more similar to Dhruv development.

Look at the Bofors artillery, the Army showed interest and then its is ready!!!..

Mate, IA wanted these howitzers for decades and we had ToT too, so what stoped us for so long to deliver them?

They also had success in CABS-DRDO AWACS as there is a certain guarantee that IAF will go for it.

Not yet, since all we have now, is a proven Brazilian aircraft, with some external changes developed from us. How good and reliable the systems are, could not be evaluated yet and only then we will see if it turns out to be a success or not. Btw, note that I didn't mentioned the delays in this project!

It depends on both parties, always.

No doubt about that, but what do you expect when your industry develops things, that the forces don't really need (HTT40, AMCA in IAF), or that come waaaaay too late and don't fit the to present requirements anymore (LCA, Arjun)? The forces will fully commit only on developments they really need, otherwise they might support it halfheartedly, that's why I am always saying AMCA must be developed for IN in first place, since they have no other / better option and because it will dramatically improve their operational capability. They would fully commit themselfs into the project, while IAF gets FGFA and AURA UCAV in the 5th field and will have 4 different types of fighter to do any possible role anyway. With this scenarion, it is no wonder that the Air Chief says, let them develop it first and then we will see if it's 5th generation or not. I share his doubts about ADA/DRDOs capability to do it alone, but the statement alone shows, that IAF is on the save side anyway. IF AMCA turns out to be a success, good, if not it's ADA/DRDOs loss not IAFs!

That's why the problem starts in the way we take on indigenous developments:

- since we don't figure our the real needs of our forces
- we don't evaluate our own capabilities to fullfil these needs
- and we look at these developments too much with pride in our mind

All this was present in LCA and now is present in several other projects too and remains to be a big problem for India!

 

[indian_foxhound]

nothing new... Well know fact. Drdo cant complet any project without delay

 

[sancho]

nothing new... Well know fact. Drdo cant complet any project without delay

Buddy, delay is not the only problem and since that happens all over the world, we can't blame our inustry for this alone too. The problems start way earlier, often even in the project planning stage, or even by DRDO officials simply claiming things, without evaluating if they can do it or not. These are not rational or logical approaches, which causes not only delays, but even complete failures of developments. More importantly though, they leave our forces without the necessary hardware to defend our country for decades and we can't simply look away anymore and have to take them to account.

 

[Dash]

@sancho

Personally I see DRDO as the bigger problem, since they promise too much and deliver too less and they also are the leader in pushing for new developments now, see AMCA, AWACS India, Aura, or even the recent claims about an own VIP helicopter. Whenever Mr. Saraswath steps infront of the media, he comes up with a new development, but where is he when want infos about the current developments?

To be honest I dont like that Saraswat guy and his inclination towards media. He bigmouths almost everything and its not him who has given the few noted achievements that DRDO has but his ancestors. We both can keep him out of this topic *** we are at the same page

Mate, IA wanted these howitzers for decades and we had ToT too, so what stoped us for so long to deliver them?

DRDO is always skeptical about IA's intention on buying anything from it, in fact it doesnt believe in IA as IA thinks that DRDO is good for nothing than some missiles. If IA was so happy with that gun why did they go for RFPs for having a better gun and didnt ask DRDO to deliver the same gun to them, mis-planning on their part. If not for blacklisting then DRDO wouldnt have had an oppertunity to showcase the new gun with an advanced range and calibre!!!!...

Not yet, since all we have now, is a proven Brazilian aircraft, with some external changes developed from us. How good and reliable the systems are, could not be evaluated yet and only then we will see if it turns out to be a success or not. Btw, note that I didn't mentioned the delays in this project!

you cant because this was an unexpected project that DRDO took and to some extent they delivered also. but by the time they are going to test it theh IAF says they need bigger AWACS, which I understand is right for national security but yhey could have encouraged DRDO to flight test further. Now DRDO as a mad organization went further and said we can develope A-50 tyoes AWACS too. and its not the dept, but Saraswat and I hate him for this.

All I am saying is DRDO as whole is not to be blamed just because someone on the top is making funny noises.

 

[sancho]

DRDO is always skeptical about IA's intention on buying anything from it, in fact it doesnt believe in IA as IA thinks that DRDO is good for nothing than some missiles. If IA was so happy with that gun why did they go for RFPs for having a better gun and didnt ask DRDO to deliver the same gun to them, mis-planning on their part. If not for blacklisting then DRDO wouldnt have had an oppertunity to showcase the new gun with an advanced range and calibre!!!!...

Or is it the simple fact that OFB and DRDO neede so many years to absorb and use the ToT gathered by the Bofors deal several decades back? The fact is, IA wanted to take options but couldn't because of the scam and if our industry was able to offer even something close to these howitzers, IA would never have gone for any competition during such a long time, but the industry simply wasn't.

All I am saying is DRDO as whole is not to be blamed just because someone on the top is making funny noises.

The problem is, it's not only him but a general policy of DRDO, which began even before Saraswath to think that they can do it all. But we don't need a DRDO for anything, just like we can't afford to have only HAL for anything in the Aero field, that's why NAL must be pushed more into the defence projects and DRDO must be focused on supporting them and not be better than them in the same fields.