Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- IV

The DRDO has succeeded with missiles, but…

George Iype

In May 1998, the DRDO and its chief Dr A P J Abdul Kalam became symbols of national pride thanks to the nuclear tests. DRDO’s expertise in explosives and related technologies, and in systems engineering and integration was the key to the five devices tested by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government.

Four months after the event, the government entrusted DRDO with a Rs 20 billion ballistic missile defence project. This is perhaps the most ambitious programme that DRDO has embarked upon. It would need to integrate the Russian-made anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile systems, which the army and air force are planning to induct, with an Israeli fire control radar.

The project, along with the Integrated Guided Missile Development programme and the nuclear submarine programme that DRDO has engaged in over the years, is meant to lay India’s foundation of strategic missile programme and security stability.

But given DRDO’s track record in the IGMD and nuclear submarine programme, not many believe the new ballistic project could come out with flying colours, that too in time.

It is not that DRDO’s missile mission has not taken India to the rarefied heights of missile power. “If there is one area in which DRDO has succeeded with a certain degree of success, it is in missiles,” says Prakash Nanda, a security expert in Bangalore who is currently writing a book on the subject.

“Agni, Prithvi, Akash, Trishul and Nag. All these missiles have made us proud. But the problem is that though a number of flight tests of these missiles have been successfully carried out, DRDO has been unable to induct some of them into the forces,” he says.

For instance, for the last 16 years, DRDO has been building two types of anti-aircraft missiles — Trishul and Akash. According to the government’s defence plans, these surface-to-air missiles were to have replaced the Russian-supplied OSA-AK and Kvadrat systems by early 1990s. But DRDO has been unable to meet the deadlines.

To be specific, the Trishul project began in 1983. The original deadline was 1992. DRDO has spent more than Rs 2.6 billion on the missile, but it is still undergoing trials. Official sources say the major problem with Trishul is that the missile’s command guidance does not work.

Hence, though the defence ministry has entrusted DRDO with the Rs 20 billion project, it is not confident that the agency will accomplish its task in time.

“The anti-ballistic missile programme will languish like the nuclear submarine project, which DRDO has been working on for years now,” a ministry official comments wryly.

Fifteen years ago, the nuclear submarine programme was billed as India’s key to second strike capability after enunciation of the no-first use policy. But after spending millions of rupees, the naval headquarters is now demanding a technical audit of the Advanced Technology Vehicle project, as it is formally known.

The design and development of the nuclear submarine is a joint project of DRDO, the Department of Atomic Energy and the Indian navy. The DRDO, DAE and navy together have spent a whopping total of Rs 20 billion on the ATV — on its design drawings from Russia, civilian construction work, establishing test beds and testing facilities on the east coast and procurement of related equipment.

DRDO sources say the land-based prototype testing facility of the submarine reactor has been completed successfully and a training facility to familiarise with the nuclear submarine’s power plant has also been set up. The submarine’s power plant would use enriched uranium as reactor fuel.

But years after the ATV project was mooted, the submarine’s keel is yet to be laid because DRDO has been unable to decide on its construction design.

Drdo

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- III

‘DRDO took up Arjun before it learnt to make tanks’

George Iype

Some 20 years ago, the defence ministry entrusted the DRDO with two projects: the development of a battle tank and a multi-barrel rocket launcher system.

The DRDO called the former, assigned to it in 1974, Arjun, and the latter Pinaka.

Two-plus decades later, the Arjun is considered a major failure. And so is the Pinaka. The Indian army found the latter passed only seven of its 29 requirements.

Defence experts allege that DRDO continues to work on Arjun and Pinaka just to keep its laboratories open.

“The Arjun main battle tank is not world class and has failed to meet the required levels of accuracy. But DRDO is keeping it alive because it does not want its factories to close down,” says Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.

Experts like Major General Mehta feel the Arjun could have been a tank with potential if DRDO had got its act together. But the premier defence research organisation continues to exert pressure on the army to accept a limited series of production for the Arjun.

Army officers say it is politics and not the tank’s potential that is at work in the defence ministry, which last year placed orders with the Avadi Ordinance Factory to manufacture 124 Arjun tanks.

“I am happy to inform you that not only is the army satisfied with the Arjun tank’s performance, but it has placed an order for 124 more such tanks,” Defence Minister George Fernandes had told Parliament. “With this India has achieved the capability for indigenous manufacture of battle tanks.”

Army officials, however, say no other defence agency in the world must have spent 25 years and Rs 3.5 billion on developing a tank that has failed to perform.

“We have wasted money and time in producing a tank that is just not a world class product these days,” an army officer in Hyderabad says.

Insiders say the army was not “satisfied with the Arjun’s performance” as Fernandes claimed, but was coerced to accept it by the DRDO.

N K Mohan Pillai, a retired army officer who witnessed the Arjun trials, says the tank lacked three vital strengths. First, its engine is weak. Second, its suspension needs permanent maintenance. Third, its gun control is not accurate enough to obtain first round kill probability.

“In fact, the main problem was that DRDO took up the Arjun project before learning how to make tanks,” Pillai remarks.

In 1994 when DRDO announced that the Arjun tank was ready for production, then army chief General B C Joshi witnessed the trials. He sent a note to the DRDO and the defence minister saying the tank fails to meet standards and therefore was unacceptable. General Joshi then laid down a dozen imperatives that DRDO should take to improve upon the tank.

General Joshi’s main concerns were that the tank that weighs 57 tonnes lacked armour protection and vital suspension for crew comfort and gunfire accuracy.

But DRDO, which has showcased the Arjun as its finest indigenous product, claims that the problem is not with the tank, but with the army.

“The army is used to handling only T-72 tanks. For the soldiers who have fired T-72 tanks, operating the Arjun is a gigantic task. So we have told the army to train their crew before accusing us of inferior production,” a DRDO engineer says.

Despite DRDO’s claims, many in the army believe that the 124 Arjun tanks will drain the exchequer just like the multi-barrel rocket launching system Pinaka did.

In 1999 the Comptroller and Auditor General severely indicted DRDO for its failure to develop critical components for Pinaka after spending Rs 424.5 million on the project.

The defence ministry had entrusted DRDO with the Pinaka project in 1980. The deadline given was 1994. Twenty years later DRDO is nowhere near finishing. The war heads and all the three vehicles necessary for launching the rockets are yet to be developed by DRDO. Against the requirement of eight types of warheads, only three have been developed. Of this, one is not acceptable to the army and the other is only a dummy.

“The delay in the development of the EWPinaka has compelled the army to depend on our existing 20 kilometre-range system even during Kargil conflict. The DRDO is entirely responsible for this,” charges an army officer.

According to experts, the Pinaka system has met just seven of the 29 requirements of the army during trials. The indigenous rocket launcher lacks the promised range, fire power, loading time of the salvo and deployment time.

These, however, are “minor problems” according to DRDO.

Drdo

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- II

‘The LCA won’t take off in the near future’

George Iype

The Light Combat Aircraft is perhaps the most ambitious of all DRDO projects. But 17 years and four postponements of its test flight later, the multi-role fighter meant to replace the MiG-21 is still a dream.

What has happened to the LCA, the most technologically complex challenge that DRDO had taken up? Air force officers, DRDO scientists and defence experts say it remains grounded because of “scores of technical problems.”

The delay has hurt the air force badly and dented the DRDO’s image. A country that has not designed a jet fighter in decades had been waiting long for one. India had designed and produced the HF-24 aircraft in the early 1960s, but its engine was British.

Such was the enthusiasm behind the LCA that in 1985 the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi showcased it as a symbol of the new era of co-operation and friendship between India and the United States. Gandhi even overrode the claims of the French and Germans who had been collaborating with DRDO and the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautical Limited for the LCA production.

The original deadline to fly the aircraft was 1993. The cost, Rs 5.6 billion. The DRDO and HAL did roll out an LCA in the presence of then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao on November 17, 1995. DRDO top brass then announced that the maiden flight would take place in early 1997. The dates were revised to June 1998 and then to February 1999.

Years passed by, but no test flight took place. Today the deadline for the LCA has become a joke in defence circles.

The most scathing criticism of the project came from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India who, in his 1999 report, said: ‘Even at the end of 1998, the LCA had not crossed the development stage. Its production and induction into the air force remains only a distant possibility.’

The CAG report went on to add that the airframe for LCA developed by the DRDO’s Bangalore laboratory, the Aeronautical Development Agency ‘is deficient in vital parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and most importantly, the weight.’

The first phase of the project consumed Rs 25 billion, overshooting the estimated Rs 5.6 billion. Worse, due to the delay, the air force was compelled to upgrade its MiG Bis aircraft at a cost of Rs 21.35 billion.

Scientists at DRDO, ADA and HAL concede one thing: the LCA has run into some serious technical problems. LCA is a meticulous fly-by-wire aircraft, which is critically dependent on software to fly.

“But over the years, we have not been successful in fully testing the software. Therefore, we face difficulties in integrating the system,” admits an engineer at HAL.

Since the aircraft depends on computers, no pilot wants to risk a flight test without thoroughly validating the system. Scientists say the trials intended to test the dynamic stability of the airframe and the LCA’s engine-flight control system has been successful. Though the engine and the electronics are in the advanced test mode, the aircraft’s ability to withstand low pressure and temperature at high altitudes is suspect.

“There is reason enough to worry that the LCA will not take off in the near future,” says Bangalore-based aviation expert P N Srivastava.

“I feel the delay is primarily due to the fact that it took years for a country like India to get the advanced technology for the project,” he says. “The idea for LCA was born without having any requisite technology on our side,” Srivastava points out.

DRDO officials put forward one reason for the project delay — sanctions from the United States after the Pokhran nuclear blasts. In a bid to force India to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle, the US has pulled out of the project soon after the tests.

Thus, just one week after the explosions in May 1998, many scientists working on different fields linked to the LCA at aerospace giant Lockheed Martin in Binghamton, New York, were asked to pack their bags for India by the United States. The Indian engineers were working to validate a computerised control law software for onboard computers which will ultimately fly the aircraft.

As it imposed sanctions, the US also denied key components like hydraulic actuators — that help manoeuvre the aircraft, gain altitude and determine the trajectory — and the ring-laser gyros to make inertial navigation systems.

“One of the main reasons for the delay is that technological sanctions from the US hit us badly. Had it not been for the nuclear blasts, our deadline to test fly the aircraft would have been successful in December 1998,” says a senior DRDO official.

Lockheed Martin refused to give the DRDO the flight control computer, which was in the US for testing, when sanctions were announced, he added.

Another major hurdle for DRDO is the LCA’s engine. As per its agreement with the US, India was allowed to purchase frontline 404 engines from General Electric. In fact, DRDO imported 11 such engines and fitted them on to the early versions of the aircraft, pending the development of the indigenous Kaveri engine being developed by Bangalore’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment.

But after the nuclear tests, GE withdrew its technical support personnel from India and DRDO was forced to depend only on Kaveri. Sources now say it will take at least two years to determine whether Kaveri engines can withstand the low pressure and temperature at high altitudes.

No one at DRDO, ADA and HAL believes that the LCA will fly before 2005.

Experts say the delay should be examined in the context of a country that has not designed and produced a jet fighter since the 1960s. Development of every vital component of the LCA — airframe, multimode radar, flight control system, Kaveri engine, digital electronic engine control – are said to be beset with problems.

Scientists at DRDO, for their part, hold the defence ministry partially responsible for the delay. Between 1990 and 1994, all work came to a virtual standstill as the defence ministry refused to release the much-needed foreign exchange because of economic stringency.

But the biggest worry for DRDO is not the bureaucratic delays and sanctions, but the Indian air force. Faced with diminishing number of its ageing fleet, the IAF holds DRDO responsible for promising to deliver the LCA before year 2,000, thereby considerably upsetting many of its aircraft acquisition plans.

Suspecting that DRDO will never deliver the LCA, the IAF has now embarked on an ambitious project to upgrade 100 MiG-21 aircraft.

Despite the heavy odds, DRDO still remains confident that it will roll out the country’s first indigenous aircraft before 2002.

“We will induct 200 LCAs into the Indian Air Force between 2003 and 2010,” Dr Abdul Kalam told a group of aeronautical scientists before he handed over DRDO’s charges to Dr Vasudev K Aatre.

But there aren’t many who believe that promise will be fulfilled.

Drdo

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Leave a comment

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- I

‘How long should we wait?’

George Iype

DRDO is responsible for indigenising and constantly upgrading the country’s weapons and equipment inventory and related supplies. But the dilemma has always been to determine the correct balance between make or buy.
The Kargil Review Committee Report
Make. Or buy?

That has been a longstanding issue between the DRDO and the Services. The former complains that the armed forces make impossible demands. The Forces say the DRDO has failed to develop the frontiers of defence technology. And that its claim to produce anything and everything has virtually strangulated critical defence exports.

Experts say it was in fact the collapse of the Soviet Union that drove home the urgency to reduce dependence on external suppliers and rely on indigenous defence production. “Thus over the years, the DRDO has been volunteering to produce virtually anything for the Indian forces. The result is that it has now accumulated nearly 1,000 projects. The DRDO does not have the capability to accomplish some of these,” says Rajendra Mohan, an independent defence analyst in Hyderabad.

According to Mohan, the DRDO promises to make anything for the Forces simply to keep many of its laboratories running. “Or else, some of the labs would have already been shut,” he points out.

Experts like Mohan argue that the very method of calculating the indigenisation content of defence development and production is a matter of debate. Over the years, the government has set up 10 committees under the Department of Defence Production to identify the scope of items such as aircraft, electronics warfare systems and armament. Based on their reports, the government had been claiming for more than a decade that the self-reliance and indigenisation content will be brought up to 70 per cent before 2000.

The core point as per this plan is minimising imports and inducting indigenously designed and manufactured systems. The stress was on increased research and development and the DRDO was the agency to implement it.

But last year, the government — after a thorough review of the DRDO — admitted that the indigenisation level still remained at only 30 per cent. It then quickly created a Self Reliance Implementation Council, chaired by then DRDO chief and now scientific advisor to the prime minister, Dr Abdul Kalam. The Council’s aim is to take indigenisation to 70 per cent by 2005. But many believe like all other DRDO targets, this deadline would also slip.

DRDO scientists claim they have made significant achievements on indigenisation and in their efforts to meet the requirements of the armed forces. They include flight simulators for aircraft, 68mm reusable rocket pod, brake parachute for fighter aircraft, mini remotely-piloted vehicle, light field gun, a new family of light weight small arms systems, charge line mine-clearing vehicle for safe passage of vehicles in the battlefield, and illuminated ammunitions for enhancing night fighting capabilities in their list of achievements.

The DRDO has also developed a cluster weapon system for fighter aircraft, naval mines, next generation bombs for high speed aircraft, low-level tracking radars Indra-I and II for the army and air force, light field artillery radar, battlefield surveillance radar, advanced ship sonar systems and torpedo launchers.

“Our biggest success and pioneering work has been the testing five nuclear devices during May 11-13, 1998 in the Pokhran range,” claims a DRDO scientist.

In collaboration with the Department of Atomic Energy, DRDO in fact designed, tested and produced advanced detonators, ruggedised high volt trigger systems, interface engineering, systems engineering and systems integration to military specifications for the nuclear blast.

“Like the nuclear bomb project, several high-technology projects are in various stages of design and development. Therefore, it is ridiculous to allege that we are a useless bunch of scientists for the armed forces,” the scientist adds.

Indeed, the problem is that for years DRDO has been enmeshed in several high-technology projects that no one really knows when the armed forces will be able to induct.

“DRDO has been acting like a dog in the manger. The agency has considerably torpedoed our efforts to import state of the art equipment because it has been boasting to make every available defence equipment that we demand,” an army officer says angrily.

For instance, he says, though the defence ministry sanctioned competence build-up projects for the multi-barrel rocket launcher Pinaka in the 1980s, DRDO is nowhere near accomplishing the target. The delay has forced the army to continue to depend upon their existing outdated system, whose range is much less compared to that envisaged for Pinaka.

Concerned about terrible delays in some of the vital projects, the army, the air force and the navy are these days asking just one question: “How long should we wait?”

For the Forces, these projects are lifelines. They include India’s indigenously built surface-to-air missiles Trishul and Akash which were to have replaced the Russian-supplied OSA-AK and Kvadrat systems in 1990. Then there is the most ambitious multi-role fighter, the light combat aircraft, the indigenous production of which DRDO has been grappling with in the last 17 years.

The main battle tank Arjun, incorporating state-of-art tank technologies with superior fire power, high mobility and excellent protection has been developed by DRDO. But the army is unhappy with its performance.

There are growing concerns among the Forces, and politicians and defence experts about the terrible delays of the DRDO and its ability to keep promises. For at stake is not just the concept of indigenisation, but a huge investment of more than Rs 150 billion that the government has made for the last two decades on various projects. Would the money be completely wasted?

“Weapon systems face obsolescence very fast. So the DRDO will have to either give up some projects or reorient its functioning,” says Mohan.

Yet, DRDO has been mouthing the political platitude of indigenisation by postponing the deadlines of LCA, Pinaka, Trishul, Akash, nuclear submarines and several types of electronics warfare systems for the army, air force and navy.

The Kargil conflict last year exposed the chinks in DRDO’s armour. None other than Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee echoed the Forces’s worries when he told DRDO directors on August 6, 1999: “Technology needed for mountain warfare is to be given the highest priority.”
But the biggest worry for DRDO is not the bureaucratic delays and sanctions, but the Indian air force. Faced with diminishing number of its ageing fleet, the IAF holds DRDO responsible for promising to deliver the LCA before year 2,000, thereby considerably upsetting many of its aircraft acquisition plans.

Suspecting that DRDO will never deliver the LCA, the IAF has now embarked on an ambitious project to upgrade 100 MiG-21 aircraft.

Despite the heavy odds, DRDO still remains confident that it will roll out the country’s first indigenous aircraft before 2002.

“We will induct 200 LCAs into the Indian Air Force between 2003 and 2010,” Dr Abdul Kalam told a group of aeronautical scientists before he handed over DRDO’s charges to Dr Vasudev K Aatre.

But there aren’t many who believe that promise will be fulfilled.

Drdo

DMSRDE RTI – DRDO Hq

2 Comments
18th July 2013
Dr. A. K. Tyagi
Scientist ‘F’ and Head RTI Cell
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
DRDO HQ, Room No. 314-A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011                         

 Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Provide copy of the complaint filed regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318.
  2. Whether any enquiry was conducted by DRDO HQ on this complaint. (Yes/No)
  3. The name & designation of officer who conducted the enquiry at DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  4. Provide the date on which enquiry was conducted.
  5. Provide copies of movement orders in respect to Dr. K Muraleedharan Scientist ‘G’, Director of Materials (DOM) to visit DMSRDE, Kanpur during 01 January 2013 to 30 June 2013.
  6. Provide copy of enquiry report/findings of the Enquiry Officer after enquiry was completed.

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II.  This RTI request is directly related with corruption.

I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  98E 528555

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

DMSRDE – RTI -2

2 Comments
To,                                                                                           Date 18th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Public Information Officer (PIO)
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013

Hello,

This is with reference to News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005. 

  1. The date on which GSQR-1318 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
  2. Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
  3. Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
  4. The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318 and the date on which BPJ-1318 developed successfully.
  5. PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1318.
  6. Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1318? If yes then provide name of the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
  7. Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1318?
  8. If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
  9. Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
  10. If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1318 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1318?
  11. Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items for development of BPJ-1318 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
  12. Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase/services hired for development of BPJ-1318.
  13. Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1318 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?
  14. Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1318 in the following format :table
  15. Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1318.
  16. Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1318.
  17. Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
  18. Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1318.
  19. Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
  20.  Whether any patent has been filed for development of BPJ-1318? if yes then provide the copy of patent filed including the name of inventors.
  21. Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).
  22. M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1318 using Limited Tendering Process?
  23. Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1318.
  24. Whether these BPJ-1318 were tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.
  25. How many BPJ-1318 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1318?
  26. Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1318. (Yes/No)
  27. AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1318 (Yes/No).

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II.  This RTI request is directly related with corruption.
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application

I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.
 
Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  12F 470723

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala RaipurDehradun-248008 
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, 
e-mail id – prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com        
 
Drdo

DMSRDE – RTI -1

Leave a comment
To,                                                                                                     17th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’ & Public Information Officer (PIO)
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013                       

Hello,

This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 and 2010-11, News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. How many GSQRs (General Staff Qualitative Requirement) for development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) have been issued to DMSRDE, Kanpur (DRDO) by AHQ (Army) till date?
  2. Provide all GSQR numbers given by AHQ for development of BPJ to DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  3. Provide the copies of sanctioning letter issued from AHQ to DRDO for these GSQRs for development of BPJ by DMSRDE.
  4. Provide total expenditure incurred in development of Bullet Proof Jacket  in DMSRDE right from sanctioning of first GSQR for BPJ up to present(current) GSQR for BPJ in following format:

(i)             GSQR No.

(ii)             Date of  sanction

(iii)            Date of closure/completion

(iv)           Expenditure incurred

  1. How much amount has been expenditured in DMSRDE in creation & setup of the facilities and infrastructure development for R&D of BPJ under these GSQRs given by AHQ to DMSRDE till date?

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II.  This RTI request is directly related with corruption.

I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  98E 528555

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
DRDO NEWS LETTER 
 A monthly house bulletin of Defence Research & Development Organisation ■ Vol. 32 No. 4 ■ April 2012
Dr AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, demonstrated the jacket to Dr VK Saraswat, SA to RM
Dr AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, demonstrated the
jacket to Dr VK Saraswat, SA to RM
Drdo

Reflections of our time

1 Comment

After 1942 it become clear that India will become independent and the national leaders started carving various developmental plans and knowing fully well that the day British goes the kitty will be empty.

However, Tata, Birla and many financially sound business tycoons came forward to rebuild India. Tata institute of Sciences, BITS Pilani, Visvesvaraya Technological University, etc. were to execute the task in land.

In 1948, though it was minor war we used equipment/arm ammunitions left out by British and fortunately both the parties across the border used the same equipment and arms ammunitions.

In 1962 we were an infant but had to fight the Chinese war in which we imported some equipment and arms ammunitions.

Successively in 1965 & 1971 once again we depended upon imported Russian equipment and some equipment given to India on goodwill.

In 1999, Kargil we were 52 years old with scientific and technological achievements on papers with lot of rewards awards like Scientist of the year, young scientist, PATH BREAKING RESEARCH AND OUTSTANDING TECHNOLOGY, AGNI AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN SELF-RELIANCE, DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY SPIN-OFF AWARD, BEST INNOVATION/FUTURISTIC DEVELOPMENT AWARD, Silicon Trophy, TITANIUM TROPHY and the list is very long.

We fought the war with imported arms & equipment. The statement of former Army chief V P Malik, who led the army during the 1999 Kargil war, has said “casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had DRDO not come in the way” in the acquisition of weapon-locating radar. “Delivery delayed is delivery denied,” said Defence Minister A.K. Antony.

The best part is that in Kargil war both parties imported same communications equipment from same suppliers of same country and history was repeated. Because of the terrain condition across the border same problems were faced by both the armies and suppliers sent engineers to rectify the problem.

Interestingly, the scientific achievement after 52 years of independence was the same.

In the Government of India, almost all the ministries have spent thousands and thousands of crores and achieved frontline technology but compared to defence R&D is far behind.

Why?

When DRDO used to have one CC R&D it delivered some output. After special powers were granted to project directors the incompetency took the fore front with the blessing of the recruiters that “position makes a man.” With this principle incompetent over powered. The bluffers became achievers.

Congrats to Dr. W. Selvamurthy one such achiever of DRDO, for assuming charge as President of Amity University, Noida.

Dr W.Selvamurthy, as CC R&D, visited DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun in a function when all the past directors were invited for felicitation. Dr E Bhagirath Rao, Sh V P Sandlas, Sh Ashok Sen were present in the function. Ex CC R&D Sh V P Sandlas then was Director General at Amity University and Dr W.Selvamurthy in his address said “the so called Director General of Amity University Sh V P sandlas” with his crooked famous smile on his face.

Amity University is same and today same Dr W.Selvamurthy has joined Amity University without obtaining the mandatory NOC from government of India (copy of RTI reply from DRDO enclosed)

But I must congratulate him that so far he has distributed crores and crores of rupees to his beloved south bound private universities via Life science board of DRDO, as per DRDO culture now he will access his past office and be able to manage funds for Amity University.

So almost private institutions are having same practice to oblige those who had helped them to provide funds (poor tax payers’ money) in the name of projects and individuals are getting interests or kickbacks by mutual understanding.

Only GOD knows when the government of India, GOM, Defence Standing Committee will realize this out flow of precious money. Since there is no accountability, these senior scientists and technocrats are fooling the nation and helping and nurturing the incompetency in the field of science and technology. This growing incompetency is a major obstacle of our self-reliance.

rti replyselva1