Tag Archives: China

Drdo

Start with how to make a Rifle

Leave a comment

We pay a price when we let other countries set our pace. One day Donald Trump includes India in the list of those “who are robbing America” and threatens to levy high taxes on “thousands and thousands

US and Indian flags (File photo | Reuters)

Published: 05th August 2018 04:00 AM
By T J S George
We pay a price when we let other countries set our pace. One day Donald Trump includes India in the list of those “who are robbing America” and threatens to levy high taxes on “thousands and thousands” of Indian motorcycles imported into America. This was when India cut duty on the glamorous Harley-Davidson from 75 per cent to 50 instead of the 0 per cent Trump wanted. Another day Trump praises India and green-lights the sale of unmanned aerial combat vehicles to India, a deal that was previously denied. These missile-firing drones have a sea variant reputed to be effective in coastal defence. No doubt, they can be decisive in beating back attacks such as the 26/11 terror strike in Mumbai.

Is India expected to cringe when Trump threatens it, and feel elated when Trump flatters it? Our concern should be not that this is a man the world mistrusts because of his unpredictable mood shifts; our concern should be the assumptions that are taken for granted, seemingly by all, in US-India dealings.

The American turnaround on the sale of hi-tech weapons such as the drone is a case in point. This looked like a systemic shift rather than a Trumpian twinkle. Nevertheless, India needs to be cautious for at least three reasons. First, America now recognises India as a full partner in its defence strategies and considers this as an “upgradation” of India. Second, Delhi sought a favourable nod from Washington before moving to buy an anti-missile defence system from Russia. Both these factors are linked to the third: Washington’s eagerness to block China’s growth as a world power.

Barack Obama’s America had formally accepted India as a “major defence partner”. But the partnership gained muscle only when Trump moved India into America’s tier-I list of countries to which sensitive weapon systems could be exported without special licences. Trump has repeatedly stressed India’s importance in what he calls the Indo-Pacific region. This recognition led to Washington waiving its sanctions provisions and thereby enabling India to buy Russia’s 39,000-crore air defence missile system.
What does all this really mean from India’s standpoint?

It is easier to see what it means to America: It opens a big market for American weapons and gets a major regional power to be involved with American defence policies in the region. There could well be a section of Indians who see it as a sign of progress when (a) America upgrades Delhi to tier-I for military sales and (b) permits Delhi to buy Russian weapons. Other sections may see it as demeaning when (a) India is expected to feel good about upgradation for purposes of buying American weapons and (b) sanction-scared Delhi seeks American permission to buy Russian weapons.

Both schools will have to see as unacceptable the extent to which India is dependent on other countries for its essential defence needs. The proud exhibit on our weapons front is the Brahmos missile. But 65 per cent of it consists of imported components. INS Vikramaditya, the pride of the Indian navy, was formerly a Russian vessel mothballed because of age. , our first “indigenously built” nuclear submarine, took in extensive help from Russia. HAL, a competent public sector company, has received discouragement from successive governments.

Its Tejas aircraft has been waiting for decades to get operational clearance. Its plans over Rafale jet fighters fell flat when the project was taken out of its hands and given to Anil Ambani’s company. Last year an Indian-made rifle was rejected by the Indian Army. Even bulletproof jackets made in India are unpopular with our defence personnel. Despite a long history of defence research, proud achievements in rocket science and slogans like Make In India, India remains the world’s largest arms importer.

When America recognises as a “major defence partner” a country that cannot produce even a rifle, it is clear that it sees India as a profitable market for its pricey weapons. In the process India loses opportunities to develop foreign policy, especially China policy, for India’s benefit as distinct from the benefits of “Indo-Pacific”. China is currently producing weaponry so sophisticated that the US has started to worry. India need not have been left so far behind. The achievements of its space programme and of its scientists in Silicon Valley point to the talent available to India. But the defence ministry is manned by IAS generalists while the country is at the mercy of parties and politicians who put their interests above the nation’s. How can one get more than what one deserves?

Drdo

DRDO has much to answer for its poor performance

2 Comments
India has been unable to increase its self-reliance capability despite taking several steps.

By Dinesh Kumar | Chandigarh | 21 January, 2018 – Sunday Gaurdian
On paper the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) comes across as formidable. It is currently engaged in about 70 projects that include making almost every major conventional weapon system and platform that major military powers are already manufacturing. From rifles and machine guns to tanks, fighter aircraft, airborne warning and control system, aircraft carrier and a wide array of missiles—surface-to-air, surface-to-surface and sub surface. In reality, the DRDO has much to answer for its performance.

The DRDO, entrusted with developing weapon systems for India’s defence requirement, is critical for ensuring a high degree of self-reliance. Its huge establishment comprises a partnership with over 40 academic institutions, 15 national science and technology agencies, 50 public sector undertakings including the nine defence public sector units, the 40 ordnance factories and the over 250 private sector industries. By 2008, an estimated 1,500 small and medium enterprises were engaged in supplying about 20% to 25% of defence components to defence firms.

Notwithstanding, however, India’s self-reliance continues to hover at 30% to 35% despite a series of measures taken by the government that has resulted in India continuing to remain overly import dependent for its defence requirements. India has been unable to increase its self-reliance capability from the current 30% to 35% despite a series of measures it has taken in the last two-and-a-half decades in particular. Much of even the existing self-reliance capability is based on licence manufacture and transfer of technology by foreign state-owned or private companies. What is more, the government itself has expressed doubts about the country’s capability to even develop core technologies in reports prepared by the parliamentary standing committee on defence.

The harsh reality is that India’s state-owned defence industry has been unable to even develop a rifle, let alone a tank or an aircraft engine. The DRDO has consistently been shifting the timeline for all projects, ranging from rifles to aircraft. Furthermore, the DRDO has been unable to successfully complete a single major project except for a few missile systems and the nuclear powered submarine, although the latter has several shortcomings in capability. The procurement process continues to be time consuming and the private industry remains mired in bureaucratic processes. Most of the private industry’s involvement currently is low scale and focused on making sub systems. It is yet to graduate to making complete weapon systems or highly sophisticated technologies as is the case with major defence companies in the US and Europe.

India’s mission to increase self-dependency for defence equipment to 70% remains a dream. In 1992, following the breakup of the Soviet Union, which had been India’s main source of weapons supply, catering to 70% of the country’s defence requirements, a defence ministry “Self Reliance Review Committee” conceived “a ten-year plan for Self-Reliance in Defence Systems”, which, starting from 1995, was aimed at increasing India’s self-reliance index to 70% by 2005. The defence ministry has now shifted its deadline to attain about 70% self-reliance by over two decades to 2027. But as of now, this seems unlikely in the next ten years.

Efforts of successive governments have failed despite two unprecedented decisions that were specifically aimed at facilitating the self-reliance process—(a) opening of the military-industrial complex to Indian private sector participation up to hundred per cent, and (b) opening up to foreign direct investment (FDI) permissible up to 26%, which was subsequently increased to 49% in 2014 and 100% in 2016.

The present government’s latest emphasis on “Make in India” is undoubtedly noble, but seemingly idealistic. It remains to be seen whether “Make in India” will translate into “Made in India” or remain “Assemble in India”, without intellectual property rights and design control. Perhaps there is wisdom in the advice of David Gross, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, who during a visit to India in January 2016 advised that in order to “Make in India”, the country should focus on first “Discover in India”, followed immediately by “Invent in India”, before it embarks on “Make in India”. But this seems unlikely, considering India’s inflexible, irrational and outdated bureaucracy and the fact that India overall has been spending a paltry 0.9% of its GDP on research and development, compared to 2.1% by China, 2.7% by the United States and 4.4% by South Korea.

India’s record of producing and exporting weapon systems is extremely modest. For example, India’s defence exports averaged a meagre US$88 million a year between 2006-07 and 2008-09, which marginally rose to $174 million in 2013-14 and $330 million in 2016. At a cursory level, the list of countries that have been importing Indian defence equipment is impressive, as it also includes the United States, United Kingdom and Russia. But a study of the equipment reveals that it is very rudimentary—flight control panels, forging equipment and electronic assemblies to the US, transmitting tubes to the UK and, to Russia, some spares and services for the Russian origin MiG-29 and Sukhoi-30 fighter aircraft. None of these are critical technologies or anywhere close to a complete weapon system or a weapon platform.

In contrast, even while China is a major importer of defence hardware, it is at the same time also self-sufficient in certain key military technologies along with being a major weapons exporter. It was the fifth largest exporter of defence equipment to developing countries between 2000 and 2007, the third largest global supplier between 2010 and 2014 following an arms export increase by 143% and ranked fourth between 2008 and 2015 in arms transfer agreements with developing nations. China’s defence exports to developing countries averaged over $3 billion annually between 2011 and 2014, more specifically $2.5 billion in 2007, $2.2 billion in 2008, $3 billion in 2009, $1.9 billion in 2010, $3.2 billion in 2011, $3.4 billion in 2012, $4.2 billion in 2013 and $3.2 billion in 2014 and $ 6 billion in 2015.

India’s state-owned military industrial complex is characterised by flaws at several levels. Internal criticism against the military-industrial complex range from the way the DRDO is conceptualised and structured, its tendency to over reach, technological limitations and incapability; coordination problems with, and changing specifications by, the users, the myriad responsibilities of the head of the DRDO, the continuing limited involvement of the private sector and the predominant role of generalist bureaucrats with no expertise in defence. Moreover, the bureaucratisation of Indian science has created a scientific-work environment with features comprising caution, rules, reviews, screenings, scrutinies, committees, controls, centralisation, delays, doubts, indecision, inaction, suspicion, friction, and less communication.

Until India increases its self-dependence for its defence requirements, India’s import bill is only expected to rise, making it a foreign-made Indian armed force. But such overdependence has come at a high price for the country and the armed forces, which for the last two-and-a-half decades has been battling depleting force levels and antiquity of weapon systems.

The author is a defence analyst

Drdo

Denied seminars abroad, DRDO scientist moves CAT

8 Comments

Written by Pranav Kulkarni | New Delhi | Published on:April 6, 2015 12:00 am – The Indian Express

A DRDO Scientist has alleged the lab denied him permission to visit other countries to attend conferences and seminars
A DRDO Scientist has alleged the lab denied him permission to visit other countries to attend conferences and seminars

A scientist has moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) after his integrity was questioned by the DRDO laboratory where he works.
In his complaint, Gausal Khan, a scientist at the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Science (DIPAS), Timarpur, has alleged the laboratory denied him permission to visit Japan, China, the Netherlands, and other countries to attend conferences and seminars.
It all started in 2011, when Khan was denied permission to visit Japan. The DIPAS, however, said he did not seek permission in time and despite being denied nod to visit Japan, he went ahead with the trip. The laboratory later filed a complaint with the police.
After working abroad, according to Khan, he in 2010 joined the DIPAS where he was part of the Hematology Group of Research. Khan, a grade ‘D’ scientist, was assigned to submit a project along with two other scientists.
In his petition, Khan said the director of the laboratory, Dr Shashi Bala Singh, denied him permission to visit Japan in February 2011 after he was selected for one “Developing World Scientist” award for the same project.
While Khan alleged the director “kept mum” on issuing him a no-objection certificate till the last date of submission of the project synopsis, the laboratory said Khan did not seek permission for going abroad in time — a claim denied by the scientist.
A chargesheet based on the laboratory’s complaint against Khan was filed in the court in April 2014. It accused Khan of entering into correspondence with “foreign universities/institutions without obtaining prior permission” as required by the government’s policy.
According to the chargesheet, he received USD 1,500 as travel award and represented one “Sinha Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology” at the conference, an allegation denied by Khan.
After the incident, Khan claimed he was denied permission to attend several other seminars and conferences abroad. The DRDO and the Ministry of Defence did not respond to the development when contacted.

 

Drdo

INTENT FOR CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT UNDER SECTION 13(1)(d) of PC ACT 1988 in PROCUREMENT OF FUME HOOD AT DMSRDE KANPUR BY DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Leave a comment
To
Dr D C Pande,
Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist
For DS up gradation list 2014 seniority no 10
Chairman 2nd Fact finding Committee constituted for DMSRDE corruption
LRDE, DRDO, Bangalore   

Subject – Intent for corruption & criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(d)of PC Act 1988 by Director, DMSRDE

Reference – Complaint to CVC – DMSRDE FUME HOOD PROCUREMENT CASE dated 22 January 2014 on the subject “Corruption in procurement of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE Kanpur officers involved in procurement”.

Sir,

For your kind attention on the complaint under reference on the subject cited above. In this procurement case Scientists of DMSRDE, DRDO were involved.

DGR&D, DRDO is trying to protect the corrupt Scientists of DMSRDE who involved in Corruption by means of illegal FFIC. In this series he constituted two FFIC which made investigation on 13-14 March 2014 and 9-10 July 2014. First FFIC gave clean chit to Dr. AK Saxena and beyond their constitutional rights recommended two scientists transfers as penalty. This is the example case in government department where fact finding committee chairman acts as judge or DRDO Hqrs’s top management used him for unconstitutional act. This brilliant idea was came from the Dr. W Selvamurty’s great चेला ( who is running DRDO administration because everyone knows that our DRDO, DG is always busy with cooking, out of the way promotion and directorships for his ………….., so he leaves all the conspiracy acts to his administrative man like his predecessor did. Beside the whole organization witnessed the exemplary result of Dr. Arun Kumar, the predecessor’s  Great चेला .

It is not new for DRDO, DRDO never take lessons from the failure of projects, that’s why Hon’ PM said on 19th August 2014 to DRDO’s so called ऋषि  leave the “चलताहै ” attitude.

The report of second FFIC is still awaited, GOD knows what will Pande ji do, it is very interesting to see his report outcome and maybe you are waiting for DS list.

Bye they way please go through some astonishing facts of only one case as a example which establish how tampering of evidences and fabrication of documents took place in DMSRDE.

Under the various guidelines of CVC, Hon’ble Supreme Court & High Court Judgments, the intent/intention for criminal misconduct is sufficient ground for section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

The DMSRDE scientists are involved in Criminal Misconduct under section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 which is established by following facts.

  1. Supply Order of Rs. 45,76,005.00 was issued to KAN-THT (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vide SO No. 14AT0089 dated 19 November 2013.(Copy Enclosed)
  2. Original Delivery Period (ODP) was 28 Feb 2014.
  3. Complaint was made to CVC on 22 January 2014.
  4. Supply Order was cancelled by Director, DMSRDE under planned conspiracy between Director, DMSRDE and KAN-THT India, Delhi.
  5. Commercial Invoice No.  BIOBASE20140123IN dated 22 and 23 January 2014 was issued from JINAN BIOBASE BIOTECH CO. LTD., CHINA to KAN-THT in the name of DMSRDE, Kanpur, I don’t think corrupt official of DMSRDE even know about this. (Copy of the Invoice is enclosed.
  6. From Invoice of Biobase, China it is quite evident that KAN-THTwas mediator in whole procurement deal and SO was issued to KAN-THT not to Biobase, China. Since SO was issued to KAN-THT India, Delhi then how Biobase, China issued Commercial Invoice of the Fume Hoods on name of DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  7. The price of 14 No.  of Fume Hood 1200C as per invoice dated 22 and 23 January 2014 is total $ 35000.00 as per conversion rate of one $ = 62 Rs. 2170000.00 (Rupees Twenty one Lakh Seventy thousand only)
  8.  The cost of supply order for 14 No. of Fume Hood 1200C as per SO dated 19 November 2013 in INR is Rs. 45,76,005.00(Rupees Forty five lakh seventy six thousand and five only).
  9. Therefore the difference in prices of Supply Order and Invoice is Rs. 24,06,005.00 (Rs. 4576005.00 – Rs. 2170000.00). The difference of amount of Rs. 24,06,005.00 was not justify, if you plus other expenses like transport/installation/profits etc not come more than 30 to 40%  the nexus between, DMSRDE officials and KAN-THT India, Delhi can clearly establish.
  10. The supply order was cancelled under exposure of deal & pressure of my complaint to CVC on subject matter. Cancellation of supply order itself shows that there was no need of Fume Hoods in DMSRDE and procurement was initiated just to get fatty commission by corrupt officials of DMSRDE. Therefore total amount of Rs. 4576005.00 of public money was going in wastage and major part of this, more than 50% was going in pocket of DMSRDE corrupt officer
  11. Mere cancelation of Supply Order cannot dilute their crime under section 13(1)(d) PC Act 1988 and their involvement in criminal misconduct. It is very clear that Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE was having intent for corruption of Rs. 26,14,815.00 and involved in criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct along with Mr. Ajitendra Singh Parihar, Scientist ‘D’(The Indenter). Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ (Head Estate & Work Division and MMG) and Mr. Ajay Chandel, Head of KAN-THT India, Delhi.
  12. Till date no action has been initiated by Sri Avinash Chander, DGR&D, DRDO against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE despite he is fully aware of the real facts and truth of the case.

The crux of above case is how DRDO purchase manual manipulated in this case

  1. As per invoice of Biobase, China the billing address is DMSRDE and shipping address is also DMSRDE, it means Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE very well knows that if they ask CDC from CC R&D, DRDO who is suppose to issue CDC in the case of domestic suppliers will ask the copy of purchase order placed by domestic supplier to foreign supplier as well as the copy of invoice issued by foreign supplier to domestic suppliers and it is clear mandate that the more than 30% of the invoice cost are not allowed.
  2. If the billing and shipping is direct to DMSRDE or any establishment than Director is suppose to issue CDC.
  3. In this case as per Biobase, China invoice custom can made party for damrage charges to DMSRDE and DRDO lose its credentials.
  4. This the mechanism to fooling the CDA and Government of India after making so many rules and precautions DRDO officials busy in research to fix the poor tax payers money.

In light of aforesaid facts, I kindly request you to submit your true findings& recommendations in FFIC report and leave the DS promotion list to almighty GOD’s disposalas these corrupt top DRDO officials could not write your faith.

Although as per DOPT Guidelines for FFI, you should call me for personal hearing but you make that technical lapse, still I again like to inform you that there are several trump cards that has not been revealed till so far as your FFIC did not gave personal hearing to me.

Besides this I would also remind you very humbly that like your Bigboss Sri Avinash Chander, you will not submit false report to protect Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur as Sri Avinash Chander submitted false report to protect his friend Dr. Arun Kumar. That everybody knows the effort of Bigboss was failed and Dr. Arun Kumar was treated properly by Hon’ble Defence Minister Sri AK Antony.

Hope you will listen your heart’s voice “अब  कितने  दिन  बाकि  है  वैसे भी  लगता  है  मोदी  जी   ने    एक्सटेंशन  बंद करने  का  मन बना  लिया  19 अगस्त को  जैसा  की  उन्होंने  कहा  की  मुझे  5 लैब्स  ऐसी  चाहिए  कि   जिसमे  35  वर्ष  से ऊपर   कोई   नहीं  हो”  समझने  वालो  के  लिए  इशारा  ही  काफी  होता।

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

Enclosed

  1. Supply order details
  2. Specifications
  3. Copy of Invoice of Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co Ltd,  China

Copy to

  1. CVC,  CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, Satarkata Bhavan , A-Block, GPO Complex , INA, New Delhi – 110 023
  2. CVO, MOD, Room No 340, Office of Director of Vigilance, B- Wing Sena Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105

Supply order detailsfume supply order

SpecificationsFumeHood specification

Copy of Invoice of Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co. Ltd,  ChinaFumeHood invoiceFumeHood stand invoice

Some more facts

DMSRDE raised demand under works headfume demand

Quotation received for same Fume hood Model FH 1200 from Jinan Bio Base Biotech Co. Ltd,  Chinafume quotation

Tender inquiry for Fume Hoodfume tender

Drdo

डीआरडीओ प्रमुख ने उठाए रक्षा बजट पर सवाल

Leave a comment
  • महानिदेशक ने रक्षा बजट में रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट से अधिक आयात को तवज्जो देने पर जताई चिंता
  • हथियारों के सेंसर देश में ही बनाने की योजना

देहरादून: तमाम रक्षा उपकरणों में सेंसर प्रणाली उसकी सटीकता को कई गुना बढ़ा देती है। अब तक सेंसर के लिए भारत फ्रांस व इजराइल समेत विभिन्न देशों पर निर्भर है। इस निर्भरता को खत्म करने के लिए रक्षा मंत्रलय ने देश में ही सेंसर तैयार करने का निर्णय लिया है। पत्रकारों से रूबरू डीआरडीओ के महानिदेशक अविनाश चंदर ने बताया कि रक्षा उपकरणों में अपने ही देश में निर्मित सेंसर लगाने के लिए करीब 700 करोड़ रुपये की योजना पर काम चल रहा है।

जागरण संवाददाता, देहरादून: डिफेंस रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट ऑर्गेनाइजेशन (डीआरडीओ) के महानिदेशक व रक्षा मंत्री के वैज्ञानिक सलाहकार अविनाश चन्दर ने रक्षा बजट के विभाजन पर गंभीर सवाल खड़े किए हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि रक्षा बजट में रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट के मामले में भारत फिसड्डी है। कुल रक्षा बजट का महज 5.5 फीसद हिस्सा ही आर-एंड-डी पर खर्च किया जा रहा है, जबकि 25 फीसद से अधिक बजट का प्रावधान विदेशों से रक्षा खरीद के लिए किया जा रहा है। इसका प्रतिकूल असर देश के रक्षा अनुसंधान पर पड़ रहा है। उन्होंने इंडियन सोसाइटी ऑफ इंडिया के स्वर्ण जयंती समारोह के उपलक्ष्य में आयोजित अंतरराष्ट्रीय सम्मेलन में कही। बुधवार को राजधानी देहरादून स्थित यंत्र अनुसंधान एवं विकास संस्थान (आइआरडीई) में ऑप्टिक्स एंड इलेक्ट्रोऑप्टिक्स विषय पर आयोजित अंतरराष्ट्रीय सम्मेलन का शुभारंभ करते हुए डीआरडीओ प्रमुख ने स्वीकार किया कि अमेरिका, इजराइल, रूस, फ्रांस व चीन के मुकाबले रक्षा अनुसंधान में भारत को अभी लंबा सफर तय करना है। यह तभी हो पाएगा जब रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट की तरफ विशेष ध्यान दिया जाएगा। चिंता की बात यह है कि इस मोर्चे पर देश बेहद पीछे चल रहा है। अपने देश में रक्षा बजट का महज 5.5 फीसद भाग आर-एंड-डी पर खर्च किया जाता है, जबकि चीन में यह दर 20 फीसद है। इसी अनदेखी के कारण रक्षा हथियारों की खरीद के लिए भारत को दूसरे देशों पर निर्भर होना पड़ता है। यदि हथियारों की खरीद के लिए रक्षा बजट के 25 फीसद हिस्से का बड़ा हिस्सा रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट पर लगाया जाए तो विदेशी सहायता की जरूरत नहीं पड़ेगी। सम्मेलन में डीआरडीओ के महानिदेशक (ईसीएस) एसएस सुंदरम, व ऑप्टिकल सोसाइटी के अध्यक्ष बीपी पाल ने माइक्रो ऑप्टिक्स, नैनो ऑप्टिक्स आदि पर विस्तृत व्याख्यान दिया। साथ ही कई रिसर्च पेपर भी प्रस्तुत किए गए। इस मौके पर सोसाइटी की स्मारिका का विमोचन व ऑप्टिक्स व इलेक्ट्रॉऑप्टिक्स प्रदर्शनी, ऑप्टिकल व फैब्रिकेशन भवन का शुभारंभ भी किया गया। कार्यक्रम में आइआरडीई के निदेशक डॉ. एके गुप्ता, डॉ. एसएस नेगी, एलएन हाजरा, अनुराग शर्मा, अमिताभ घोष, अभय कुमार उपस्थित थे।

DRDO chief also raised questions on the defense budget Instruments Research and Development Establishment, IRDE, Dehradun organized the International Conference on Optics and Electro-optics Inaugurating DRDO chief admitted that the U.S., Israel, Russia, France and China's defense research still a long way to India have to.
DRDO chief also raised questions on the defense budget
Instruments Research and Development Establishment, (IRDE), Dehradun organized the International Conference on Optics and Electro-optics Inaugurating DRDO chief admitted that the U.S., Israel, Russia, France and China’s defense research still a long way to India have to.

 

Uncategorized

Desi defence showpieces powered by videshi parts

Leave a comment

Rajat Pandit, TNN Jan 13, 2014, 01.39AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Tejas light combat aircraft, 30 years in the making, is just 60% indigenous as of now. The story of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank is even worse. First sanctioned in May 1974, 55% of the tank is still made of imported parts. This is the recurring theme across India’s fledgling defence industrial base (DIB), with the government failing to whip DRDO and its sprawling empire of over 50 laboratories as well as the five defence PSUs, four shipyards and 50 ordnance factories into shape.
The defence ministry, with its constant flip-flops, has also failed to spur the domestic private sector into entering the defence production sector in a big way. Neither has it managed to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), notching up a measly $5 million in the last 14 years.toi1

AK Antony may often tom-tom “indigenisation” as one of his guiding mantras, which he feels can curb corruption, but the ground reality has hardly changed in the over seven years he has been at the helm in MoD. India continues to wallow as the world’s largest arms importer, with the armed forces still getting around 65% of their military hardware and software from abroad.
In sharp contrast, China has emerged as the fastest growing arms exporter around the globe after assiduously building a strong DIB. It’s now hawking fighter jets, warships, missiles and smaller arms to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bolivia and Zambia.

But a “proper ecosystem” has simply not been erected in India. As if the “high import content” in the so-called indigenous projects was not enough, insiders say even the much-touted transfer of technology (ToT) provision build into large defence contracts with foreign manufacturers is a bit of a sham.

“Indian PSUs focus more on just assembling knocked-down kits from foreign vendors instead of properly absorbing technologies,” said a senior official, pointing to the ongoing “licensed production” of the Russian-origin Sukhoi-30MKI fighters by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL).

India has inducted almost 200 of the 272 Sukhois contracted for well over $12 billion from Russia, with HAL producing most of the fighters. “As per plans, HAL should have begun making Sukhois completely from raw material two-three years ago. But there has been a big delay,” he said.

“Moreover, the cost of each HAL-manufactured Sukhoi is almost Rs 100 crore more than if the same fighter was directly imported from Russia (the last 42 Sukhois ordered cost over Rs 450 crore each),” he added.

DRDO does have a point that funds allocated for defence R&D are not adequate. “We just get slightly over 5% of the total defence budget. The US defence R&D budget is around 12%, while China has 20%,” said a scientist.

But not many are impressed, pointing to huge time and cost overruns in almost all DRDO projects. While the indigenous development of Tejas, Arjun and other weapon systems is certainly to be cheered, the high import content in them remains another source of worry.

Take Tejas, which finally achieved its initial operational clearance last month. It has an American engine, British ejection seat, Canadian canopy sheath and Israeli radar. “A major chunk of its avionics and weapons are also imported. The series production of the Tejas Mark-II version, which is what IAF actually wants, is unlikely to begin before 2022,” said an officer.
The Army, in turn, has inducted 124 Arjun Mark-I tanks, while trials are currently in progress for the Mark-II version with 89 “upgrades or improvements”. The tank is just about 45% indigenous as of now, with its main laser guided missile being the Israeli LAHAT. “Arjun’s missile firing control system, laser target designator, engine transmission, suspension unit and running gear (track) are all foreign,” said an Army officer.

India has fared relatively better on the naval front, with all the 45 warships currently on order being constructed in Indian shipyards. Officials say India has achieved 80-90% indigenisation in the “float” (warship’s structure, hull etc), 50-60% on the “move” (propulsion) and 30% on the “fight” (weapons and sensors) components.

Uncategorized

A Relative Comparison of Science and Technology Development in India with Neighbors like China and Pakistan

Leave a comment

Dr K K Jha

Applied Science and Humanities, DCE, Gurgaon

 Introduction:

The advances of science and technology have a profound impact on our lives in almost every sphere of activity, such as health, agriculture, communication, transportation, and defence. These advances have been driven by an ever-growing exciting discoveries, patented and parented by  science laboratories in the West, and by their transformation into technology and new products that have flooded world markets. . The world is today sharply divided by a technology boundary that separates the technologically advanced countries from the technologically backward ones. India shares almost 1500 Km geographical boundaries each with China and Pakistan. The three neighbors  show almost the same (poor) indicators of social development but they are struggling to achieve sustainable economic growth, self-reliance in technology development and in gaining an important global position. India, Pakistan and China have totally different political systems which play a vital role in their growth and development and in shaping their science and technology policies.

Science in India is on the move in a big way. The government has initiated multibillion dollar investments to kick start research, education, and innovation over the next five years. In early 2013, government announced an ambitious science, technology, and innovation funding protocol: in the next five years, double its investment in science and technology and, by 2020, drive India’s output of scientific publications to be among the top five nations globally. According to Prof. C. N. Rao chairman of the Science Advisory Council to the Prime Minister “The government is going to inject $5 billion into science and technology over the next five years,”. “This doubles the investment to-date from 1% to 2% of GDP.”  This increase in funding is aimed at creating jobs, educating technical leaders, and improving the quality of science in this country of 1.2 billion people.

India seeks to improve its global scientific reputation. The creation of new institutions and universities (funded by Govt. and private), opportunities for independent leadership training, and efforts to expand fundamental research base and cultivate a culture of technology transfer are just a few components to encourage young researchers to set up their own industry. In addition, international alliances, collaborations between India and other developed nations has helped  building strong scientific capacity within the subcontinent.

But despite these outreach and funding programs, there are still some challenges that need to be addressed for making India super power in 2020.

Quality of Science / Technology Education:

Recent infrastructure investment programmes have successfully produced new facilities and institutions all over India. However, there is insufficient talent within India to take up this task. Nonetheless, theoretical and experimental / analytical research in India is moving forward with areas such as nanotechnology, clean energy, and of course health at the forefront. Our space,and defence  (R&D)  programme  is  slowly moving towards self reliance.

Expanding Facilities and Infrastructure:

The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are among India’s most prestigious academic institutions. These autonomous institutes were established in the early 1960s, and the government has since expanded their number from the original five—Kharagpur, Bombay (Mumbai), Madras (Chennai), Kanpur, and Delhi—to a total of 16. This increase reflects the government’s new policies to give students from a wider range of social backgrounds the opportunity to study at India’s top-tier universities. However, the products of IIT preferred to join lucrative jobs  elsewhere and the potential trained  manpower failed to do justice with the country.

In recent years the nation has launched five new Indian institutes of science education and research, eight new IITs, 16 new central universities, 10 new national institutes of technology, six new research and development institutions in biotechnology, and five institutions in other branches including bio- materials and solar energy.

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in Mumbai, one of India’s oldest and premier basic research institutes has opened its new campus. The new 200-acre campus will be significantly larger than the Mumbai facility. A new International Centre for Theoretical Sciences in Bangalore—similar to, but broader in scope than the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge, which organizes international research programs in pure and applied mathematics has been established.  Although, “finding high-quality staff to teach and manage the new centers will be a challenge.” Since  1980  we encouraged  technical managers  and sales managers  than  high  quality researchers.  In fact a vacuum  has been  created and it is difficult to find committed skilled researchers.

In an effort to fill the abundance of new positions, the government has established programs to court Indians working abroad back to their home country.  Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) has taken steps  to attract highly skilled researchers working overseas.

Increasing Career Opportunities

With the increases in funding and rapidly expanding institutions, opportunities are becoming more readily available for scientists who want to work in India.

One challenge that is on the  minds of both Indian academics and government representatives is the ability to draw and retain talented post docs and other early-career scholars into India’s institutions. Some researchers are less than optimistic about finding a solution to attract post docs to India when higher remuneration packages are available in the West. Although this situation is not uncommon in India, certain national, international, “and institutional programs may be helping to alleviate this problem.

The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)-Nehru Science Postdoctoral Research Fellowship is one such program designed to engage younger scientists. This postdoc opportunity seeks to identify promising young researchers with innovative ideas and provide them with training to transition into independent research careers.

Growing Talent Early

The new funding may prove fruitful for innovation, but there is a need for greater access to education for Indians—approximately half of whom are under 25 years old. The government has responded to calls for greater educational opportunities for young people from a wider spectrum of society, and recently the DST launched the Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research (INSPIRE) program, with the aim of attracting students to science and expects to have funded one million young scholars by 2014.

This is just one program that seeks to build research capacity by giving students the opportunity to gain vital research-related skills. This is important in order to sustain global competitiveness among progressive nations like China. According to C. N. Rao, China, currently produces almost as many journal articles as the United States, and  will soon overtake the U.S.  China graduates some 20,000 Ph.D.s annually., “How can we compete with this?”

Policymakers want India to increase the number of top scientific publications. To achieve this we need more high-quality submissions, and to achieve that we need more good people. Unfortunately  most of the  scientific leaders  have never soiled their hands.

One of the challenges to finding “good people” is that many Indian students prefer to major in engineering rather than science, because of the promise and prestige of lucrative industrial career opportunities. But India’s leaders recognized the need to motivate more youngsters to pursue science careers and hone research skills by forming five Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) in 2007. Here, faculty members have the freedom to pursue interdisciplinary projects while engaging their undergraduates in research.

The Khorana Program is an international consortium also designed to enhance research capacity within India and across borders. Jointly supported by UW, DBT, and the Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum (IUSSTF), and launched in 2008, the program grants Indian and American students the opportunity to pursue research at universities in each other’s nations.

Developing Research Areas

The new funding policy will advance India’s prowess in a number of strategic industries, such as space, energy, and the life sciences as well as important research areas in physics, materials science, and atmospheric science. Planned missions to Mars and a neutrino observatory will receive financial support under the new framework.

But it is also the new policy’s acknowledgement of the role of innovation in targeted technological industries that is contributing to a renewed excitement among India’s scientists. Energy is one of those strategic sectors, and many of India’s scientific leaders are leveraging the government’s interest in it to enhance vital research programs. For example, as materials science plays a central role in developing innovative technologies for the growing energy market, scientists like Arindam Ghosh at IISc are advancing materials research in graphene for solar cells and nanoelectronics.

India’s scientists are also working with their counterparts in the United States on a major new Indo-U.S. initiative called the Solar Energy Research Institute for India and the United States (SERIIUS), funded through the U.S.-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy and administered by IUSSTF. India needs every drop of power we can produce.

Affordable health care and medical devices not requiring external electrical sources of power for operation are high-priority projects being undertaken at the CeNSE at IISc. “India has the largest number of people with diabetes in the world, We want to use nanoelectronics to produce cheap wireless biosensors to monitor this disease in people living in rural India.”

The Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (in Stem), and Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms (C-CAMP) on the NCBS campus are at the forefront of life sciences and translational medical research. “We offer an excellent environment for engaging in fundamental interdisciplinary research and also for early translation. We want to encourage our researchers to move ideas from discovery to innovation. To do so, NCSB has partnered with industry leaders to accelerate commercialization. Recent examples of successful projects include an inexpensive kit to test for HIV/AIDS; the licensing of this technology is being negotiated with global companies.

This emphasis on translational research and technology transfer is being amplified throughout the country. The Tata Innovation Fellowship, a highly competitive scheme instituted by the DBT, recognizes and rewards innovative and productive life science researchers. Its specific prominence is on interdisciplinary, translational research with a potential for technology commercialization.

Future Challenges

Both challenges and hope lie ahead for India. Other often neglected but important science-related issues to address include establishing university curricula to improve the ability of young students to communicate in English, especially technical writing; the introduction of coordinated proactive strategies by research institutes to improve the ‘visibility’ of their scientists; incentives and financial support for entrepreneurial scientists to set up companies to commercialize ideas; and changes in labor laws to enable universities to hire qualified scientists irrespective of nationality.

The general mood of scientists—both veterans and young returnees—in India is positive. “India needs to build many more ‘innovation ecosystems’ like NCBS where there is a lot of intellectual freedom and a drive to define the cutting edge at an international level.”

And as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently said in an interview with Science, “One has to be optimistic. (….), unless one is optimistic, one is overwhelmed by the dimension of the development task that we have to accomplish.”

“Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before.” – President Barack Obama, April 27, 2009

India’s Science, Technology, Innovation Policy of 2013

“A strong and visible Science, Research and Innovation System for High Technology led path for India” – “SRISHTI” – is the main goal of India’s new Science, Technology and Innovation policy (2013). At the 2010 Indian Science Congress, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared 2010-20 as the “Decade of Innovations” and formed the National Innovation Council. The STI Policy 2013 is in furtherance of the declaration and aims to bring fresh perspectives to bear on innovation in the changing context.

The statement “India’s global competitiveness will be determined by the extent to which the STI enterprise contributes social good and/or economic wealth” reflects India’s concerns about achieving higher economic growth for all sector development. Energy and environment, food and nutrition, water and sanitation, habitat, affordable health care and skill building and unemployment are the major identified areas that need new structural mechanisms and models, while the promotion of scientific temper, enhancing skill for application of science among the youth, making careers in science, making research and innovation attractive are some of the other major elements identified for connecting science with the people and increasing the number of skilled manpower in the Science & Technology (S&T) sector. In the new STI policy equal weightage is given to establishing world class R&D infrastructure, positioning India among the top five countries of the world and increasing private sector participation in R&D. India is looking to increase its Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) to two per cent of the GDP in the coming years.

Promoting the establishment of large R&D facilities in public-private partnership (PPP) mode, permitting the participation of multiple stakeholders in the R&D system, treating R&D in the private sector at par with public establishments are some of the other proposed points that are mentioned in the new policy to get more private investments in India’s S&T programs.’ STI policy 2013, gives hope to achieve high in developing indigenous technology by increasing private sector involvement in its S&T programmes.

Pakistan: Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2012

“To achieve the security, prosperity and social cohesion of Pakistan through equitable and sustainable socio-economic progress using science, technology and innovation as central pillars of development in all sectors of economic activity” is the main vision of Pakistan’s Science, Technology and Innovation policy (2012). STI 2012 highlights four major areas – Socio-economic development, Human resource development, R&D infrastructure and S&T management – in which Pakistan wants to see more progress. Pakistan is looking forward to increase its R&D expenditure; which will be one per cent of GDP by 2015 and two per cent by 2020. The prominent features of the current policy are the proposal for an effective mechanism of policy oversight, highlighting innovation as a driver of economic activity, paradigm shift from supply to demand side and an effort to align ST&I policy with national policies in other economic sectors.’ 16 Thrust Areas are also identified for R&D activities. In this new policy, focus is more on promoting R&D activities, programmes for technology transfer and technology development.

Science and Technology Programmes of China

China’s science and technology is undergoing a great development. In all, the increasing development of China’s overall S&T capacity narrows its gap with the world level in science. China keeps pace with developed countries in some key research areas, while it has already reached the world level or even ranked top in some emerging research areas. China’s output in science and technology increased fast; its innovation capacity has greatly strengthened, the role of science and technology in socio-economic development has greatly enhanced, and the public awareness of innovation and science greatly improved.

China has developed its long term S&T programs in the form of “Science and Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050”, which was published in a Strategic General report of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2010. China has identified eight basic and strategic systems for socio-economic development and twenty–two S&T initiatives of strategic importance to China’s modernization.

In January 2006, China initiated a 15-year “Medium to Long term Plan (MLP) for the development of science and Technology”. The MLP calls for China to become an “innovation-oriented society” by the year 2020 and a World leader in science and technology by 2050. China’s science and technology programmes are more oriented towards developing “indigenous technology” and new “innovations”. In coming years China is planning to reduce imported technology and promote R&D infrastructure and activities. Since long China is investing a great deal in science education, specifically higher education in science and technology, to develop world class scientists and make China self-reliant in technology development.

Since 1980, China is following very well developed science and technology programmes, plans and policies both for developmental and security requirements. China is running five major national programmes under the banner of National Programs for Science and Technology, which includes: The National Program for Key Science and Technology Programs (Key Technologies Research and Development Program – renamed in 2006 “zhicheng” or support), National High Technology Research and Development Program – (863 Programs), National Key Basic Research Program (973 Programs), The Torch Program, The Spark Program.

An Overview of Economic Growth of India, Pakistan and China in recent years

“The re-emergence of China and India as major forces in the world economy is one of the most important developments in the early 21st century.” “The growth rate of their gross domestic products from 2020 to 2025 is expected to be about the same—5.7 percent in China and 5.6 percent in India. China’s current overall GDP is about three times larger than India’s, and by 2025 the difference between their two GDPs is estimated to be $4.4 trillion annually.” The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Pakistan grew by 3.67 per cent in 2012. These different growth patterns of economic development also tell different growth stories of science and technology development in these three countries.

Brief Analysis of Science and Technology Achievements of India, Pakistan and China

In recent times, the IT Industry, Space and missile programmes and Research in basic science have emerged as major areas in which India is showing good progress at the domestic and international levels. But in spite of having a good number of science and technology institutes and organizations, policies and programmes, a good number of human resources and recent economic progress, India’s science and technology programmes are suffering due to a number of reasons, of which lack of coordination between organizations and improper implementation of policies are the two main reasons affecting India’s science and technology programmes.

Pakistan has developed a good number of science and technology institutes and universities for higher education and research. But its scientific programmes have always been influenced by other countries’ political and economic agendas. Between the 1950s and 1970s Pakistan received scientific and technical support from the USA while China emerged as a trusted ally in the 1960s. China has provided blueprints for its nuclear programme and the material required for developing nuclear weapons. “Pakistan has achieved a lot in nuclear science and acquired complete nuclear capability in 1983.” Post 9/11, Pakistan is getting more international funds including from the USA for different development programmes.

The Chinese government’s national science programmes and industrial policies aimed at high tech industries are a significant contributor to the technological successes enjoyed by Chinese firms. Among the factors propelling China‘s emergence as a techno-industrial power is its low-cost manufacturing capabilities, a huge market, an export promotion strategy, and the shrewd appropriation of the best technology from the international system.’ China’s science and technology programs are highly motivated towards economic Development and national Security. It is constantly increasing its strength in fulfilling security requirements and achieving sustainable high economic growth.

Conclusions:

India, Pakistan and China are three different countries with varying socio-cultural, economic and historical backgrounds. S&T innovations and economic growth are two sides of the same coin and deeply interconnected with each other. Today we are living in a globally connected world. These connections and collaborations are purely for business and economic purposes, but in coming years we will see global cooperation in the field of science, technology and innovations as well. But we should not forget that such collaboration and cooperation are premised on political, strategic and economic interests. These new developments in the science and technology policies of India, Pakistan and China will change global perspectives in many ways the in coming years. In such a scenario it will be interesting to see how science and technology innovations and all such collaborations will shape relations between India, Pakistan and China.

References:

News paper articles (The Hindu, The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Hindustan)

Dr K. K. Jha
Ph D.
Scientist (Retd)
DRDO, Ministry Of Defence, GOI
Mob no.:- 08954436364

 

Drdo

India’s secrets are in Guangdong

1 Comment

Published: Wednesday, Mar 13, 2013, 6:15 IST | Updated: Tuesday, Mar 12, 2013, 23:25 IST
By Saikat Datta | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

A successful Chinese hacking attack has caused what is arguably the biggest security breach in India with systems of hundreds of key DRDO and other security officials being compromised and leading to the leak of sensitive files related to the cabinet committee on security (CCS), the highest decision-making body for security issues of the government of India.

The other stolen files recovered so far belong to the governments of the United States, Russia, and South Korea.

The leak was detected in the first week of March as officials from India’s technical intelligence wing, National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), working with private Indian cyber security experts cracked open a file called “army cyber policy”. The file had been attached to hacked email accounts of senior DRDO officials that quickly spread through the system in a matter of seconds.

As Indian security experts began to track its origin they discovered, for the first time, that all the sensitive files stolen from the infected systems were being uploaded on a server in the Guangdong province of China.

So far, Indian intelligence has never been able to pinpoint a hacking attack with such accuracy.
As they continued to trace the breach, they discovered thousands of top secret CCS files, and other documents related to surface-to-air missile and radar programmes from DRDL, a DRDO laboratory based in Hyderabad, among many other establishments.

Even the e-tickets of the scientists who had travelled to Delhi in the last week of February were found on the server.

The intelligence officials also discovered documents of deals struck between DRDO and Bharat Dynamics Ltd, a defence PSU which manufactures strategic missiles and components. Some other recovered files were related to price negotiations with MBDA, a French missile manufacturing company.

But the shocking part was the extent of the hacking by the Chinese, believed to be officially sponsored.

The officials began to find files related to the Russian military as well as files that belonged to CSRDC (Centre for Security Research & Development Center) which comes under the United States department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology directorate.
Some files from NASA too have been recovered so far. All this was discovered after cyber security

officials of the Information Dominance Group (IDG) and private Indian cyber security officials began to track down the “NetTraveler Trojan and Key logger” that had infected Indian systems. The other files recovered belong to South Korea, Russia, and the United States.

For a server of its size and capacity, believed to be worth almost Rs150 crore in the open market, it hosted just six domains. This is highly unusual because a server of this size usually has over 10,000 domains.

This meant that this was being used for a specific purpose. Initially, it took time to decipher the files since they were all encrypted. But after the key was found, the decryption of the files began and to their horror, Indian intelligence officials discovered this massive breach of security.

Traced to server:
*Systems of hundreds of key DRDO and other security officials compromised

*Sensitive files related to the cabinet committee on security (CCS) leaked

*Thousands of top secret CCS files and documents related to surface-to-air missile and radar programmes from defence research & development lab discovered

*All sensitive files stolen from infected systems uploaded on a server in China’s Guangdong province

Drdo

Chinese hackers merrily go through thousands of secret files of DRDO missile systems in Guangdong:report

Leave a comment

India TV webteam [ Updated 13 Mar 2013, 07:21:39 ]

New Delhi, Mach 13: Chinese hackers have breached the systems of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) leading to the leak of thousands of top secret files related to Cabinet Committee on Security, which have been detected to have been uploaded on a server in Guangdong, the Mumbai newspaper DNA reported.

The report says this is the biggest security breach in the Indian defence establishment.

The breach was detected in the first week of this month when officials from India’s technical itelligence wing, NTRO (National Technical Research Organisation), working with private Indian cyber security experts cracked open a file called “army cyber policy”.

The file was found attacked to hacked email accounts of senior DRDO officials that quickly spread through the system in a matter of seconds, says the DNA report.

As Indian security experts began to track its origin, they discovered, for the first time, that all the sensitive files stolen from the infected systems were beingu ploaded on a server in Guangdong province of China.

So far, Indian intelligence had never been able to pinpoint a hacking attack with such accuracy.

Indian cyber security experts discovered thousands of top secret CCS files, and other documents related to surface-to-air missile and radar programmes from DRDL, a DRDO lab based in Hyderabad, among many other establishments.

Even the e-tickets of DRDO scientists who had travelled to Delhi in February were found on the server.

Intelligence officials also discovered documents of deals struck between DRDO and Bharat Dyamics Ltd, a defence PSU which makes strategic missiles and components.

Other recovered files related to price negotiations with MBDA, a French missile manufacturing company.

Drdo

Chinese hackers breach DRDO security, steal thousands of secret files

Leave a comment

 

13 Mar 2013 10:59:10 AM IST

The official website of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) once again came under the cyber attack unleashed by the Chinese hackers.
According to the Mumbai newspaper DNA, Chinese hackers breached the security of DRDO website and accessed thousands of top secret files.

As par the report, the top secret files related to Cabinet Committee on Security have been uploaded on a server based in Guangdong.

The report claims that this is the biggest security breach in the Indian defence establishment.

The hacking incident came to the fore in the first week of this month when officials from India’s technical intelligence wing, National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), along with private Indian cyber security experts cracked open a file called “army cyber policy”.

The DNA report claimed that the file was found attacked to hacked email accounts of senior DRDO officials that quickly spread through the system in a matter of seconds.

Later, the NTRO found that all the sensitive files stolen from the infected systems were being uploaded on a server in Guangdong province of China.

For the first time, Indian cyber intelligence team has successfully tracked the hacking location.

Indian cyber security experts discovered thousands of top secret CCS files, and other documents related to surface-to-air missile and radar programmes from DRDL, a DRDO lab based in Hyderabad, among many other establishments.

Even the e-tickets of DRDO scientists who had travelled to Delhi in February were found on the server.

Intelligence officials also discovered documents of deals struck between DRDO and Bharat Dyamics Ltd, a defence PSU which makes strategic missiles and components.

Other recovered files related to price negotiations with MBDA, a French missile manufacturing company.