By MEERA MOHANTY & Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 11 May, 2015, 07.04AM IST
NEW DELHI: Terrorists, irrespective of wherever they may be operating from, should be neutralised using all types of methods, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told ET in an exclusive interview. He elaborated that “neutralisation” doesn’t necessarily mean killing terrorists but making them “ineffective.”
Parrikar also criticised ex-BJP minister Arun Shourie, saying the latter “does not have the full brief on what is happening”. Shourie had recently said the Narendra Modi government was faltering on policymaking and delivery.
Responding to a question on how India should deal with terrorists in foreign territory, the defence minister said: “A terrorist has to be neutralised-…Certain issues cannot be discussed but I feel that for any enemy of the country, all types of methods should be used to neutralise them.”
“Neutralising does not mean just killing…it means any method that makes them non-functional – get him to jail or to make him ineffective in any manner,” Parrikar added.
In his wide-ranging interaction with ET covering several key policy areas, Parrikar also set out the exact figure on India’s manufacturing share of the Rafale fighter jet project – France will need to spend 50% of the contract value, almost four billion dollars, as investments in the Indian defence and aerospace sector. The minister said the Rafale jet project will “unleash Make-in- India”.
Parrikar also said that with India buying around 36 Rafale jets for now, government savings on this project is likely to be up Rs 60,000-65,000 crore. This money, Parrikar said, will be used to accelerate defence manufacturing in India, including speeding up the long-ingestation Light Combat Aircraft. The minister said LCA will be inducted in large numbers, up to 200 fighters or 10 squadrons.
Parrikar linked low levels infiltration from Pakistan and fewer incidents of cross-border firing this year to Indian forces’ strong retaliation to “misadventures”.
Acknowledgingthat defence forces face an issue on resources, the minister said all three wings, army, air force and navy, must prioritise spending. All three wings have been asked to make a list of must-have items, Parrikar said. He said Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) would have a new head by May 24.
DRDO will also have a separate Scientific Advisor, who will be attached to the ministry for independent advice. Parrikar said for important projects he will form consortiums of all stakeholders from the government system, it won’t be just DRDO taking all the critical decisions.If the army has to operate in the Jammu & Kashmir, it needs AFSPA: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar
By Manu Pubby & MEERA MOHANTY, ET Bureau | 11 May, 2015, 03.20AM IST
In an interview with ET, Parrikar spoke on alleged Mumbai attack mastermind Lakhvi, changes in defence procurement and PM Modi’s detractors.
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar opened up to ET on a range of issues — from modernisation of the armed forces to reforms and policy changes. In an interview with ET, Parrikar spoke on alleged Mumbai attack mastermind Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, changes in defence procurement, and PM Narendra Modi’s detractors.
Do the forces have enough money to modernise? There have been voices of a fund crunch from the three armed forces and some concerns in terms of low spending on the military.
As a percentage of total expenditure of the government of India, the spending on defence has gone up from 12.2% two years back to 13.8% this year. I think that the wise use of money is more important than just having more amount of spending on defence. I am working on it and that is why I have been asking the forces for their priorities. On the Rafale deal, for example, we are ordering just 36. If we had ordered 126, it would have been 3.75 times the cost. Yes, there are money issues but spending more effectively is more important.
What are the next steps in the Rafale deal and how will it be linked to the Made in India concept?
The basic message is that the Rafale deal has been restricted in number. By doing this, we will free about Rs 60,000-65,000 crore – money which will be used for Make in India. Even in the Rafale deal, we will have 50% offsets. So this will take care of partial Make in India. But more than that, we now have money released for activities that can be carried out in improving and speeding up the LCA (Light Combat Aircraft). We can have 10-12 squadrons as MiG 21 replacements.
The army says infiltration has come down on the Line of Control but there are indications that the international border controlled by the BSF has seen more activity. What do you attribute this to?
The IB comes under the home ministry so I cannot comment on it but in the last 2-3 months things have been calm. There was some cross-border firing in October-January but that has come down. You cannot stop someone else from doing something but when there was a proper retaliation, the resolve was clearly indicated through our reaction to their misadventure. As of now (firing) has come to a substantial low level. On the army border (LoC), the firing is way down because of stricter action that has been planned.
How do you deal with a terrorist like Lakhvi who operates from across the border?
A terrorist has to be neutralised. I am not using the word for a “suspected terrorist” but for someone we know is a terrorist. Any terrorist who has acted against the interests of this country has to be brought to book, or, if he uses violent methods, should be neutralised. Certain issues cannot be discussed but I feel that for any enemy of the country, all types of methods should be used to neutralise them. Neutralise does not mean just killing, it means any method that makes them nonfunctional — get him to jail or to make him ineffective in any manner.
How is the ministry tackling issues of defence reforms, like the appointment of a new Chief of Defence Staff and the revamping of DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organisation)?
On a joint chief, we will take a view in May-June. Forward movements will be after two months. Let the DRDO chief come in (by May 25) — a lot of things will depend on that. Also, immediately a scientific advisor will also be appointed. In the meanwhile, reforms are being worked out. For example, we are forming a missile team with DRDO, air force, army and navy representatives that will go into the full ecosystem of missile requirements — what we require, how many we require and whether we can work out improvements will be discussed. We will do a similar system for helicopters and artillery.
On Make in India, there are several projects, from artillery guns to aircraft, being discussed. Do we have the resources and right policy for these to go through?
The financial provision will be taken care of. Make in India has nothing to do with finance but to do with making in India rather than importing. We are revamping the defence procurement procedure and have formed a committee on this under Dhirendra Singh, former home secretary, and seven-eight others. By June, it should be on board.
What are your views on the necessity of AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) in J&K?
To continue or not with AFSPA in J&K is a decision of the home ministry…I will not express my views on it, but if the army has to operate in the area, it needs AFSPA. It is a necessity of operations and an operator cannot do without it.
PM Modi and his policies have recently come under attack from several from the BJP, including Arun Shourie.
An attack on Modi is nothing new. People always attack those who are important in the government. As far as Shourie is concerned, he does not have the full brief of what is happening. It is a nation of 125 cr people and getting results is not an easy task.
Readers’ opinions Madhu Asramam (kuwait) 36 Minutes ago If present defence minister is able to change the so called white elephant of DRDO in to an institution which can meet the challenge of delivering most sophisticated weapons to Indian defence forces-things are to be unpredictable. But it is not sure when it will be achievable.
To, 10th May 2015 ShriManoharParrikar, Defence, Minister, Ministry of Defence, Room No 104, South Block, New Delhi-110011
Subject: Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur’s misadventure by repairing multi utility shed from the cloth (Dress Material or other purpose) procured for Army Jawans
Sir, DMSRDE having a multi utility shed for organizing different local functions and programs. The structure built by steel and covered by water proof cloth like used by tent houses.
Recently this Feb 26-28, 2015 at DMSRDE, Kanpur organized a Conference on Microscopy in Materials Science and Biomimetic Technology with Academy of microscopic science and technology (AMST) society, Kanpur in above multi utility shed.
Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE founder of Academy of microscopic science and technology (AMST) society, Kanpur.
Just before conference MULI UTILITY SHED repaired by VIRAJ SYNTAX LTD, Kanpur, and the Material was provided by DMSRDE, Kanpur under directive of Dr A kK Saxena.
The material used was PU COATED NYLON WHITE FABRIC (Procured for fabrication of WIND CHEATER FOR GLACER REGION) and Green PVC Coated fabric they have used for upper layer of shed.
The Multi Utility shed being a part of the public infra structure the work should have been done by public concerned authority such as CC (R&D)N , MES, but as a matter of habitual procedural defiance the work was done the other way and therefore no norms for repairs followed resulting in wastage of the material
White fabric was procured in 1999-2000 in excess and store audit objection is in position.
Interestingly, the valuable public material got issued in the name of ‘study purpose’ just before the conference jointly organized by DMSRDE and AMST (Academy of microscopic science and technology) in which Dr. KN Pandey , Retd. TO”C”, one of the very close circle advisors group of Dr. AK Saxena is the founder general secretary of wonderful society the AMST where there are no declared policies or bye laws and no transparency in accounts handling.
With a very huge loss to public property approximately 1000 m market rate is (RS 250/meter) of pu coated nylon white was used for lower layer total shed where a much low cost white cloth would have been sufficient for aesthetics.
400 meters market rate is RS 450 /meter of pu coated green heavy cloths were used for upper layer.
The repairs could not last even for two months and again they are using the unduly expensive cloth for re-repairing with the purpose of getting rid of the audit objection in an unmindful and sheepish way.
The current position of this multi utility shed’s photographs is enclosed for your ready reference.
Sir, It is requested that please direct these DRDO officials not to waste public money for their adventures, needful inquiry is also requested in this Dr A K Saxena’s misadventure.
AUTHOR: NITI PIB BOT – MAY 9, 2015http://www.niticentral.com//2015/05/09/modernisation-of-drdo-312496.html
Modernisation of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is a continuous process.
One of the major recommendations of Kelkar Committee report was to review the functioning of DRDO. Accordingly, a Committee headed by Dr. P. Rama Rao was constituted by the Government for reviewing the functioning of DRDO.
The Committee submitted its report to the Government. After examination, the Government has implemented the following recommendations of the Committee:
• Nomination of Nodal Officers for structured interaction between DRDO and Services.
• Introduction of Integrated Financial Advice (IFA) Scheme for financial decentralization.
• Appointment of a dedicated Chief Controller for Human Resources (HR).
· Creation of Seven Technology Domain based Clusters headed by Director’s General,Restructuring of DRDO HQrs, Creation of Directorate of Systems Analysis and Modelling (SAM) and Directorate of Quality, Reliability and Safety (QR&S).
· Efforts have also been made to increase budget for Extramural Research as recommended by the Committee.
Further,a note has been initiated by DRDO for approval of the Cabinet for:
· Creation of empowered Defence Technology Commission (DTC).
· Creation of a Commercial Arm of DRDO.
· Renaming of Director General, DRDO as Chairman, DRDO.
· Full scale implementation of IFA scheme and creation of posts thereto.
This information was given by Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar in a written reply to Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi in Lok Sabha today.
House No 6/568, Svy No – 56, ApleGhar Society, Kharadi, Pune – 411014 Mobile 9405608273
08 May 2015
Shri NarenderModi,Hon’ble Prime Minister of India7 Race Course Road New Delhi
ShriManoharParrikarHon’bleDefence Minister and Chancellor, DIAT(DU) 104, South Block, New Delhi-110011
Mr RK MathurHon’ble Defence Secretary, 101-A, South Block, New Delhi
COMPLAINT AGAINST RECRUITMENT OF LABORATORY SUPERINTENDENT (ESTATE EXECUTIVE) AT DIAT (DU), GIRINAGAR, PUNE VIDE ADVERTISEMENT NO 02/2014 AND SCIENTIFIC OFFICER IN 2013
Dear Sir,
I, the above named ex-serviceman, retired from Indian Army,(Qualification of, Diploma in Civil Engineering , BE Civil & Post Graduate in Construction Management), would like to submit the following facts regarding manipulation and corruption in recruitment processes going on in DIAT, Girinagar, Pune :-
DIAT(DU, Girinagar, Pune, published vacancy for the post of, Registrar, Scientific Officer and Superintendent in Apr 2013 and I applied for Scientific Officer, as my qualification and experience meeting their essential and preferential qualification.
In mid of year 2013 they also published for a post of Estate Manager, later amended to Estate Consultant, on contract basis with lump sum payment of Rs 31,000/pm. I appeared for this post and was selected with joining date 06 Sep 2013. When I submitted my resignation to my present company, but my resignation was not accepted, which I intimated to DIAT well in advance.
Again DIAT conducted a walk-in-interview for Estate Consultant but they did not get suitable candidate in interview in the month of Oct-Nov 13. When they didn’t get candidate, I was contacted in the moth of Dec 2013 by Registrar saying to meet him personally in the office. When I came, I was given a promise ”If I will join as Estate Consultant, they will select me for SO post, for which I applied, which is a permanent job with basic pay of 9300 and grade pay of Rs 5400/-), (as discussed in para1 above)”. I agreed happily and promised them to Join DIAT on 03 Jan 2014. As I was promised for a permanent job by top official of DIAT(DU) in basic pay of 9300 with 5400 grade pay, I forcefully got resignation from my present employer by giving up my one month salary about 75000/ (as I did not given them notice period of one month). But during joining I was mentally tortured by Mr AnantSubramaniam, Dy Registrar (Admin) for reason best known to him at that time in the name of documentation etc. But any how I joined DIAT on 13 Jan 2014. Later it was revealed that the reason for tortured by Anant sir was that the advertised post of Scientific Officers was already fixed for his candidate Mr SD Adilinge, who was later selected also, not only selected but his basic pay was increased from 9300 to 15600/- rewarding him being candidate of Dy Registrar (Admin) and ex-Navy, Registrar is also ex-navy, Sir my question is that if this post was for Rs 15600 basic pay(Class I Officer), why it was not published in advertisement. This is nothing but way ofhelping their own candidate by keeping higher office in dark/conceding facts.
In between my duty in EWO, a case was initiated for Qtr No P 325/3, new multi-storeyed building (occupant Mr Ramesh A Jahangirdar, Finance Officer, DIAT). This quarter was from MILIT pool and MILIT as well as EMU was pressing hard to vacate the qtr. As quarter was in excellent condition Mr FO was not in mood to vacate the same. In correspondence process with MILIT, several time FO asked me for all connected files of that quarter from board stage to till date, but I refused to give them without consent of my boss Mr HN Sahu, EWO. At that very time I was threatened by FO that he will damage my career when time come. I did not care and kept doing my duty sincerely.
In the month of February 2014 list of shortlisted candidates for interview(only two or three candidates) for SO was out but my name was not there. When I asked them, as I was already working there), they raised question of my experience and grade pay which I shown them through MES Regulation and my PPO, I retired from grade pay of 4600/-. As stated earlier also, Anant Sir never wanted me to be called for interview as I was having better qualification and experience than his candidate Mr Adlinge.But finally my candidature was not considered for interview and I got frustrated as I joined DIAT on pretext of this job only and not for Estate Consultant which was a temporary job with mere payment of Rs 31000/-pm, by leaving 75000/- PM from my previous company. Seeing corrupt recruitment process of DIAT, I put up resignation giving one week notice as per agreement made. My resignation was accepted by then Hon’ble VC, Mr Prahlada. I discontinued my service from DIAT.
When I did not go to office after resignation, I was called several times by Registrar sir from his landline phone and mobile phone, but I did not respond to the call. Finally my wife attended the phone and was told to send me to office to meet him personally (Registrar sir). I went there and met him too and expressed my anguish. But finally I was convinced and told that a new post called Lab Superintendent (Estate Executive) will be created and will be given to me. But I had no faith in their false promises, as I already resigned from my previous company and resigned from DIAT too making me un-employed,so I decided to continue in DIAT till I get a new job in outside Construction Company. I kept on searching out side job from my old friend circle while doing duty at DIAT and got job in Apr 2014 and thereafter I put my resignation from DIAT and came out with effect from 15 May 2014.
But keeping DIATtheir promise alive they published one vacancy vide by advertisement No 02/14 for Laboratory Superintendent (Estate Executive) in pay scale ofRs 9300 and grade pay 4200 which I also applied.This post has requirement of experience grade pay of 2800/- Luckily this timeI was called for written test and interview on 05 Dec 2014. But when I was in interview I was surprised to see the candidates who were called for interview were not having basic requirements of advertisement like grade pay of 2800/- and experience and some were fresher too, but were called for interview. If so is the process then why it wasnot followed for selecting SO earlier, the reason is very clear if I would have been called for interview their candidate Mr SD Adilinge, who is also from Ex-Navy (also Registrar sir is from Navy) would have not been selected because selection team for SO was from outside DIAT.
Generally DIAT give result for selected candidates(if the candidate is of their choice) within maximum 1-2 days(as was done for SO) but for Lab Supdt no result has been published so far. On enquiry un-official it has come to notice that Finance Officer Mr Ramesh A Jahagirdar, also member of governing body, has raised objection that I am not fulfilling requirement of computer qualification. If it was so, then why I was called for interview. Actual ground fact is something different “As FO seen my name in selected list, he raised illogical objection of computer knowledge. If a candidate is Diploma in civil, BE in civil and Post Graduate, and experience of 22 years and MES as JE (Civil) where separate subject of computer is there(in all three degrees) with ‘C’ C+ languages. How these petty things can yield to rejection of selected candidate in written and interview in spite of having better computer qualification than required and has also worked for same post in DIAT.
Sir, Finance Officer, DIAT, is so annoyed to me that he compelled DIAT administration to re-advertise same vacancy, without giving information of previous recruitment of the post,and kept this post in reserve category of OBC so that even I cannot apply for the post. Sir how previous advertisement of general category has become this time in reserve category of OBC. Ref advertisement of Lab Superintendent published vide DIAT advertisement No 03/2015.
Sir I would like to bring following facts into your notice about the recruitment process in DIAT, Girinagar :-
No selection in DIAT is fair and un-biased.
No defined and firm recruitment policy exists in Institute which are changed according to the stature of the reference officer of DIAT.
Vacancy is advertisedonly based on either recommendationfrom DIAT or some other intention not on actual requirement of the Institute.
Only those candidates are selected against vacancy which has strong recommendation or great influence in the big post staff of institute.
Candidates are being black mailed by giving hope for job.
There is big nexus between some selected officialsof the Institute.
Sir, though I worked in DIAT for merely 4.5 months but what I seen there is that single quoted tender of Rs 5 crore in 2014 in the name of “Data centre in Mechanical engineering dept”, where already centralised Data centre is functioning, was accepted. Which is entirely against the rules of Indian Contract Act 1872, as I have also prepared and accepted contract independently in CWE Udhampur for 3 years when was in MES. They not only accepted single tender but each item was overpriced, and entire running 11 split AC of 1.5ton capacity of the room was removed and thrown to scrap and replaced with new one. This is nothing but wastage of public money.
In view of the above, I would like your intervention in recruitment and functioning process of DIAT so that no eligible candidates like me are rejected from selected list due to personal interests of some maligned officers of institute. I think it will be great help if recruitment power of the institute is ceased and a proper enquiry is set to check the process adopted for selection of entire posts since 2013. The power of recruitment must be given to professional recruitment agency like CEPTAM or SSC.
In hope of proper enquiry and stringent action against the defaulter,
By Pradip R Sagar Published: 09th May 2015 05:00 AM – The New Indian Express
NEW DELHI: A probe is on into allegations that a Pune-based laboratory of the country’s premier defence research agency DRDO had developed and donated a hi-tech chariot to a temple, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar informed Parliament on Friday.
Express in its report dated November 23 had reported that the DRDO laboratory had spent `5 crore to develop a hi-tech chariot and donated it to Alandi Temple in Pune.
Responding to a` question raised in the Lok Sabha by TDP MP C H Malla Reddy on the matter, Parrikar said in a written reply that the matter is “under inquiry”.
“Further action would be taken thereafter,” he added.
This shocking piece of information came out after a scientist of the same laboratory moved the Bombay High Court over the absurd venture and filed a complaint with the CVC.
The scientist, was made to pay for raising his voice. The DRDO, in turn, not only stripped him off from ongoing projects, but also transferred him from the centre.
Dr S Guruprasad, Director of the laboratory Research and Development Establishment (engineers), Pune, had told Express that they had built the battery-operated chariot over a year’s time and the DRDO carried out the project under the head of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
The chariot can run for about 12 hours and the battery takes six hours to get fully charged. The chariot is made of carbon fibre, which has reduced its weight considerably to 1,900 kg from about 4,000 kg of the old chariot.
R&DE, Pune, has a mandate to design and develop combat engineering systems such as military bridging and mine warfare systems, development of field defence systems and, design and development of weapon launch systems such as Prithvi, Agni, Brahmos, Nirbhay, among others.
While numerous DRDO projects such as the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, Nag missile, long-range surface-to-air missile and the airborne early warning and control system have been delayed and have cost much higher than their original estimates, indulging in such an expensive “religious” project have raised many eyebrows.
Kalyan Ray, New Delhi, May 08,2015, DHNS: The indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) will experience a major handicap in defeating the enemy due to non-availability and poor performance of three electronic warfare instruments, developed by Indian agencies.
During the trial, the all-important counter measure dispensing system that protects the aircraft against radar and heat-seeking missiles, could not do its job properly, leaving the jet with poor defence. The system was developed by , Hyderabad-based Bharat Dynamics Limited.
It was not the only faltering system on-board the LCA. The self protection jammer that blocks the enemy radar was too big to be fitted into the Mark-I version of the LCA and the radar warning receiver, which alerts the pilots on hostile enemy signals, perform poorly. Both were developed by Bangaluru-based Defence Avionics Research Establishment.
“LCA Mark-I remains deficient in full electronic warfare capabilities as specified in the Air Staff Requirement (ASR),” the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) says in a review report that was tabled in Parliament on Friday.
The aircraft, which achieved initial operational clearances on December 2013, has as many as 53 shortfalls from the specifications drawn in the ASR.
Some of the shortcomings like increased weight, reduced internal fuel capacity, pilot protection from the front and reduced speed are to be addressed in the Mark-II version that was taken up by the Aeronautical Development Agency in 2009 and scheduled for completion in 2018.
Even after 30 years, the LCA could get only the initial operational clearance (IOC) in December 2013. The full operational clearance (FOC) is now targeted in December, 2015.
The cost is also rising all these years. What began as a Rs 560 crore programme in 1983 has now gone up by almost twenty times. The financial package for LCA now stands at Rs 8294 crore.
The auditor also criticised the Defence Ministry for awarding two commercial contracts to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in 2006 and 2010 for delivering 20 fighter planes in each contract in the IOC and FOC configurations respectively to the IAF.
Both were termed premature because in 2006 LCA design was nowhere near finalisation, whereas in 2010 HAL was yet to supply any aircraft to the force as per the previous contract. Even now, the IAF is not in a position to operationalise the LCA squadron in the absence of a trainer aircraft. Moreover, HAL’s production capacity – four aircraft per year – is only half of what the government wants.
DH News Service
Press Trust of India | New Delhi , May 8, 2015 – Business Standard
A probe is on into allegations that a Pune-based DRDO lab had donated to a temple a ‘hi-tech chariot’ made by its scientists, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar informed Parliament today.
Responding to a question in Lok Sabha whether Pune-based DRDO lab, Research and Development Establishment (Engineers) had developed a hi-tech battery-operated chariot and subsequently donated it, the minister said in a written reply that the matter is “under inquiry”.
“Further action would be taken thereafter,” he added.
News reports had it that the lab had developed the chariot for a temple and donated it under its corporate social responsibility.
The battery-operated chariot can reportedly run for about 12 hours and the battery can be fully charged in six hours.
Not only that, IAF would be “constrained” to induct the fighter LCA without availability of a trainer model, thereby “adversely impacting pilot training.”
By PTI | 8 May, 2015, 07.40PM IST – The Economic Times NEW DELHI: India’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft project, in the works for over three decades, came under severe criticism from CAG today as it pointed out that its Mark-I version has 53 “significant shortfalls” which have reduced its operational capabilities as well as survivability.
Not only that, 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.
“LCA Mark-I, which achieved Initial Operational Clearance (December, 2013) has significant shortfalls (53 permanent waivers/concessions” in meeting ASR (Air Staff Requirements) as a result of which it will have reduced operational capabilities and reduced survivability, thereby limiting its operational employability when inducted into IAF squadrons,” the report said.
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 till January this year.
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.
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 said that ADA’s decision to advance the 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.
The audit body also had a word of appreciation for the ADA, saying its work centres on the indigenous development of the LCA, “which is comparable to many contemporary aircraft in the world”.
CAG said that the manufacturing facilities at HAL cater presently to the production of only four aircraft per annum as against the envisaged requirement of eight due to delays in procuring plant and machinery, tools and also construction of production hangars, which would further impact production of LCA and induction into IAF squadrons.
Repair and Overhaul (ROH) facility for LCA, as specified in the ASR, has not been created fully at HAL, the CAG said.
Of the 344 Line Replaceable Units of LCA, 90 LRUs were considered non-repairable, it said. Of the remaining 254 LRUs, while ROH facilities in respect of 185 were available, the same was yet to be established for 69 LRUs as of January this year, the report added.
The CAG stressed on the need for more efficient management of planning and execution of aircraft development programmes, closer interaction and coordinated efforts among all the stakeholders involved.
It recommended that realistic timelines should be set by MoD while seeking approval for such projects from the government and that the same ..
should be adhered to during their execution with coordinated planning and an effective in-built monitoring mechanism.
“In view of the complexity of the technology involved, while deviating from the approved plan of development, ADA should consult the user (Air HQ) and obtain prior approval of sanctioning authority/ministry for such deviations so as to minimise waivers and concessions at the time of acceptance by the user (IAF),” it said.
The agencies — DRDO, ADA and HAL — should undertake the projects strictly in conformity with the specifications projected by IAF, who should be involved right from the planning stage so as to ensure timely achievement of their requirements.
Indigenisation efforts should be made in coordination with all the agencies involved by having a well-defined indigenisation plan and a clear roadmap for developing a quality product as per the requirement so as to avoid import substitution, it said.
“MoD should award contract to production agency at an appropriate stage of development of a system/equipment in order to avoid the necessity of extending delivery schedule due to a delay in the development of the system, apart from the resultant blocking of funds/inventory and to overcome obsolescence of the components procured by the production agency,” the CAG said.
As everyone aware that lot of complaints was filed against various Lab heads, but somehow DRDO management managing to protect these corrupts.
The case of CEPTAM, Director, Sh Rajesh Goyal’s SMS scheme, Dr A K Saxena , Director, DMSRDE is on the top of corrupt scientists list, So called Prof. Dr M P Kaushik, ex Director, DRDE, regarding procurement of 100 cr ICAD Chempro100i Make: Environics, Dr A K Maini, Ex Director, LASTEC regarding fire scam of Coil Laser facility worth Rs 21 Cr, Dr. Lokendra Singh’s farzi claim of Bio digester, Director, DRDE Dr Vijay Veer minting money in the name of high altitude vegetables, Dr Shashi bala, Director, DIPAS looting in the name of improving the health condition of our jawans in extreme condition, (Super audit report), Dr K Tamilmani companies exposed by CAG on LCA issue, Dr K D Nayak, Burman minting money in the name of customized PC from Tata powers etc. Dr Hardwar Singh legacy still running in the name of GOCO, Dr Shubhananda Rao, Resin Allied, Dr Guru Prasad Silver Rath even not going to save him, Ms Tessy Thomas appointment as Director, ASL and her husband appointment with tailor made recruitment snatched the SA post from Sh Avinash Chander.
There several cases are pending in the name of inquiry is going on ……
Now hope Parrikar sahib will going to take seriously all complaints of
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
