In case of SP you are absolutely right,but the situation is not so bad when it comes to towed arty since there are 60 regiments or 1200 pieces of M 46 towed artillery pieces are currently operational into Indian Army.
No 'Dhanush' Howitzer for the Army?
- Thread starter bloo
- Start date
In case of SP you are absolutely right,but the situation is not so bad when it comes to towed arty since there are 60 regiments or 1200 pieces of M 46 towed artillery pieces are currently operational into Indian Army.
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
On the contrary, the campaign is promoting MANUFACTURING in India, not Indian developments. If any Indian privat player can offer a foreign howitzer at similar or lower costs, with even better performance, they will have a better chance than the indigenous once.
The heli deals are also not cancelled to favour HAL's helicopters, but to implement the policy to team up with Indian privat partners and let them produce the FOREIGN helicopters in India.
The campaign is a huge blunder and far too many Indians fall for it, because the government sells it the right way, while it has nothing to do with pushing indigenous developments nor with making Indian self reliant. But one have to give it to the PM and his advisors, they made excellent choices for their PR teams during elections and now to sell their agendas.
Check this article, good read about the PR team:
Revealed: Man behind PM's Make in India campaign | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis
kaku1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 3,755
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
I dont understand, if that so then why the Army is not going for Kalyani 155mm/52 gun.
:: Artillery Systems ::
SarthakGanguly
BANNED
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,416
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
We MUST get the Dhanush. Period. It is not the best, but we can't be make the best overnight.
Ok.I agree with you.
Now I have some doubts.What is the state of our Aerospace Industry?
Does we have any better technology to offer our Armed Forces?
With a 4 trillion $ reserve Chinese are spending so much for R&D but now the latest development is they are buying Su 35 from Russia.
Unfortunately we dont have money ,nor technology or infra facilities.
Only thing we can offer to world is Human Resources.And that is why they made this campaign.
Noone of this foreign investors gonna give their sensitive tech.Even if we offer billions of gold.
We should know pur limitations.We are not a developed nations and we need to give employment opportunities to the booming work class.Like you said this make in India not gonna give techs to India but at least we can reduce draining of some best talents from India.
Last edited:
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Our aero industry is doing very bad, LCA, IJT, HTT40, Saras, RTA, AMCA, all dreams that partially shows where the limitations of our capability at this point are, but mainly show how silly and naiv we are taking these kind of projects on. Aiming way too high, making things far too complicated with with too much pride but too less logic!
Only the helicopter field does good and gives us at least some hope to belive that we can do better.
The example of China is exactly what I am saying all the time too, spending money alone doesn't make you capable of developing things. That's why the naiv believe of many Indians, that our problems are based on the lack of funding, will get us nowhere either, because that's just a lame excuse when things were messed up.
Our most promissing way remains the joint development way, that's where we can implement our requirements and imput the most, while getting access to hi techs as well, that we alone could not develop in years.
The make in India approach not give us any credible know how if it is aimed only on licence production in India, but if it puts more focus on joint developments like the DRDO / TATA proposal in FICV, it can be a good way. That's why I'm always for the combination of government owned and privat Indian companies in projects to benefit from both sides, rather than playing the one against the other, with foreign partners. Take the SSK issue, it would be much more beneficial for India, if MDL and L&T would jointly develop an SSK with DRDO systems, compared to MDL teaming up with one foreign partner, L&T with another for seperate bids and the winner must integrate DRDO techs, that never were meant to be put on the sub. => The result is licence production, limited development skill improvement and the hope that DRDO gets something done (and man am I pissed about them right now wrt the Kaveri issue!!!
).Our aero industry is doing very bad, LCA, IJT, HTT40, Saras, RTA, AMCA, all dreams that partially shows where the limitations of our capability at this point are, but mainly show how silly and naiv we are taking these kind of projects on. Aiming way too high, making things far too complicated with with too much pride but too less logic!
Only the helicopter field does good and gives us at least some hope to belive that we can do better.
The example of China is exactly what I am saying all the time too, spending money alone doesn't make you capable of developing things. That's why the naiv believe of many Indians, that our problems are based on the lack of funding, will get us nowhere either, because that's just a lame excuse when things were messed up.
Our most promissing way remains the joint development way, that's where we can implement our requirements and imput the most, while getting access to hi techs as well, that we alone could not develop in years.
The make in India approach not give us any credible know how if it is aimed only on licence production in India, but if it puts more focus on joint developments like the DRDO / TATA proposal in FICV, it can be a good way. That's why I'm always for the combination of government owned and privat Indian companies in projects to benefit from both sides, rather than playing the one against the other, with foreign partners. Take the SSK issue, it would be much more beneficial for India, if MDL and L&T would jointly develop an SSK with DRDO systems, compared to MDL teaming up with one foreign partner, L&T with another for seperate bids and the winner must integrate DRDO techs, that never were meant to be put on the sub. => The result is licence production, limited development skill improvement and the hope that DRDO gets something done (and man am I pissed about them right now wrt the Kaveri issue!!!
Joint development is the only shortest way for acquiring high tech.But even if it comes to joint development we dont have much in our hands to share with our foreign partners.
In Barak 8 Israel can easily develop their own even if we dont give dual pulse motor.Same things also happens in the case of FGFA.
Like you said Except that decent heli industry(perhaps that is why GoI cancelled foreign heli purchasing)we dont have anything in our hand for creating fighter tech, neither money nor tech and zero infra.
First of all we need a large pool of aero experts,technicians ,skilled labours etc.Our HAL cant absorb entire talents and outcome is that they will seek jobs in other nations since we dont have any aerobased industry except HAL (too in publiic field) ,Our private industries dont have any capacity to create another HAL (forget about LM or Sukhoi Corp or Dassault Corp) combinedly.
So if we can attract some aerobased industry in to India at least we can stop the flow of talents to outside of India and create a large pool of aeromanufacturing experts in India itself like we created Computer enginerrs.
Kaveri engine is a dead episode .We dont need to reinvent another GE 414 .Lets they findout their mistake and create a solution for next gen engine for AMCA.
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Reply fits better in this thread
The home made is foreign in the first place! The DRDO gun is based on the Bofors ToT we got, the Arjun Catapult is based on a Soviet gun, the Bharat Forge gun is based on a Austrian development by a company Bharat Forge took over, the Tata gun is just a Tata vehicle that has mounted S. African Denel gun..., so lets not be naive here we need foreign input, no matter how!
The question therefor is only, what is the best way to implement the foreign input?
1) off the shelf procurement (M777) - fast, capable, limited industrial advantage
2) development based on available or taken over know how (Dhanush / Arjun Catapult, Bharat Forge) - slow, capability must be proven in comparisions, high industrial advantage
3) JV, licence production (Tata / Denel, L&T...) - fast, capable, medium industrial advantage
4) Joint developments - medium term prospect, capable with Indian specific requirements, high industrial advantage
The home made is foreign in the first place! The DRDO gun is based on the Bofors ToT we got, the Arjun Catapult is based on a Soviet gun, the Bharat Forge gun is based on a Austrian development by a company Bharat Forge took over, the Tata gun is just a Tata vehicle that has mounted S. African Denel gun..., so lets not be naive here we need foreign input, no matter how!
The question therefor is only, what is the best way to implement the foreign input?
1) off the shelf procurement (M777) - fast, capable, limited industrial advantage
2) development based on available or taken over know how (Dhanush / Arjun Catapult, Bharat Forge) - slow, capability must be proven in comparisions, high industrial advantage
3) JV, licence production (Tata / Denel, L&T...) - fast, capable, medium industrial advantage
4) Joint developments - medium term prospect, capable with Indian specific requirements, high industrial advantage
Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Shove it down Dalbir Singh's throat.
I hate this attitude of our top generals for choosing anything foreign over giving a chance for indigenous stuff to evolve and let Indian scientists upgrade them with time.
I hate this attitude of our top generals for choosing anything foreign over giving a chance for indigenous stuff to evolve and let Indian scientists upgrade them with time.
Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
We have had this argument many times. It is not about reinventing the wheel, there is no reason to do it all on your own when you haven't even had a chance to stand yet. It is why private Indian companies are the best bet. How they get the technology is not our concern, who they employ in their factories or for consultancy is not the issue, we must be able to have an assembly line running in India. Improvements can & will always get made over the long term. Artilley is the best bet along with rifles etc to use companies like Bharat Forge to build world class stuff. I find it very difficult to believe that Bharat Forge especially will have much difficulty doing so, they are very good at their stuff. Having a metallurgist as the DM may help in this particular case.
Last edited:
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Of course not, we have only limited technical input but can take over 50% of the funds and of the share. That's something that's a win win for both sides, since neither Israel can afford to develop and procure these kind of systems alone (largely dependent on US funding), nor can Russia.
So we pay to get 50% ownership, access to high techs and capability in a fast development and still can contribute maybe 20% on our own.
Compared to 100% ownership of a low to medium techs and capabilties, in slow developments, with up to 60% own contribution.
Both ways make us self reliant, but only the joint developments give us security and reduction of the knowledge gap.
I disagree, we have state own companies that can easily set up the base for R&D and infra, but they have to do it more effectively and guided by the MoD. The worst we did, was to give DRDO and HAL freedom to do what THEY want, instead of to to what the forces need and to give the monopoly.
And I totally disagree that we don't have the money. The excuse that we are a poor country is not working when you have a defence budget that belongs to the top 10 in the world and is increasing year by year, or if you send satellites to Mars.
Not to mention that we have some great private sector companies in India, that so far however doesn't show any reasonable interest in the defence or aero sector, therefor we have no competition in the aero field either.
So we have the basics, but we have to put them together in a better way. Invite private players for licence productions and JVs was the right start to create more competition and increasing the interest in the Indian defence market. The current government follows that way, although too one sided by looking only on the benefits of the privat sector. But as long as we don't push DRDO, ADA and HAL harder to show results and deliver products, as long as we don't hold any manager or scientist accountable for failures and delays, they won't get more effective and just jump on the next project. That's where the GoI / MoD has to put the biggest focus and pressure on, not just rewarding mistakes with more money!
Says who? We already have orders for around 180 x LCAs / N-LCAs with US engines + 45 x Mig 29K with Russian engines and possibly 126 x Rafales with French engines. All of them in the same class of Kaveri and all of them sooner or later needs replacements. DRDO failed to develop Kaveri for LCA - ok, but why shouldn't they further develop it for LCA MLU, Mig 29K MLU, Rafale MLU? Replacing current foreign technology, with similar Indian counterparts!
That's exactly what we already do on the MKI, Samtel MFDs replacing Russian, DRDO Astra and Sudarshan aimed on replacing Russian R27/77 and KAB 500 / 1500 (on LCA they will replace Derby and Griffin LGBs). They don't have to be superior, but at least comparable in performance, while making us self reliant! So why do we make us dependent on foreign engines even in future, instead of improving Kaveri to a similar capability as these engine (and we are talking about more than 500 engines here!!!)?
It's just the same old habit of DRDO, they don't get things finished and already jump on the next project. LCA => AMCA, puls doppler radar => AESA radar, NAG => Helina, Astra & Sudarshan => Anti radiation missile, Kaveri => NG engine...
Last edited:
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
I guess you are mixing up some discussions of us. I never said that we have to do it alone, on the contrary, I am all for more joint developments even if our contribution is lower. The point were we often differ is the view of the privat industry, where you have just blind faith in them to be the only solution and where I have a more realistic view by looking at what they actually aim on. If you look a bit closer to the differences between the TATA / Denel JV and the way of Bharat Forge you will understand it too.
The one has only invested a minimum and only because a proper tender was send out, without any reasonable R&D behind it and basic licence production as the result. While the other has invested big times to own the knowledge and experience of a foreign company, as an investment for the future. That gives them the short term capability, to produce the already developed howitzer in India, but also futur capability to develop new versions on their own. TATA's way is just a short term measure here, without long term interests, contrary to Bharat Forge.
On the other side, TATA teamed up with DRDO for the FICV tender, they put far more investments and R&D in that project, but also gain from systems and knowledge DRDO can contribute, besides taking available off the shelf parts from the foreign market. That project shows the ideal way of how projects in India should go!
- jointly developed by government and private industry
- with long term interests in the Indian defence sector in mind
- developed according to the requirements of the forces
- managed in a proper manner
- developed in a simple way
So it's not about playing privat industry against government owned once, but about getting the maximum out of both for the Indian forces. We have to get more competition for the government owned companies, have to get the privat industry more commited for the long term and even better to get them work together!
I would beg to differ on your opinion about the Dhanush.Firstly,DRDO (ARDE to be precise) is not involved in this project,not in a big way,they have a different project to develop a new L55 gun.Besides,it may be based on the original FH 77B but it does not share the same parts.So in practice,Dhanus is a new system.I agree with the rest of your points though.
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
It doesn't have the same parts and therefor can be considered as new, but it's still based on the same ToT and design base of the FH77, we didn't make a proper newly developed howitzer here, according to own requirements and own R&D, but mainly figured out how to produce the FH77 maybe with minor modifications, but that's it.
If we had done such a development from scratch, it would had taken much longer.
Of course,but the modifications were in no way 'minor'.The Dhanus is vastly superior to the base model in each and every field including the addition of an automatic rammer,longer barrel,muzzle velocity radar,digital fire control system,FOG based gun stabilization - all these were absent in the original project.More over,as you yourself stated earlier,the industrial benefits it provide in the long term simply can not be overlooked.That's why I have been in favor of Dhanus being inducted from the very beginning even if it is slightly inferior to the L52 systems available in the international market.
