Tag Archives: hardware

PMO

BEL Senior Officers Conversations Regarding Corruption in Prestigious Air Force IACCS Project

Leave a comment

www.corruptionindrdo.com,  however, cannot independently verify the authenticity of audio. Received from anonymous source. 

www.corruptionindrdo.com  has forwarded government agencies for further investigation.

Here is a conversation between Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr. Pandey is exposing the BEL corruption Modus Operandi  observed in ordering of civil contracts in IACCS.  

Mr. D.K. Chatterjee an IIT Kanpur Graduate of 1983 batch had worked in many indigenously developed products related to communications and radars. He is presently in the R&D group in-charge of the Radar Data processing. He is an engineer of par excellence in his field and through his in-house research and development he has saved a huge amount of foreign exchange for the country.

He has been targeted by the BEL management and his career has been stalled since he does not fit into the BEL model of going for foreign ToTs and with big corporate / private vendors to provide the defence forces equipment at very high cost and ensure kickbacks leading to corruption where persons at highest level BEL are involved. In the IACCS project the biggest challenge was to integrate the legacy Radars of Indian Air force and Army with the IACCS system since the output protocol of these old Radars was not compatible with input requirement for IACCS system.

Mr. D.K. Chatterjee and Mr. M.M. Pandey wherein Mr. Pandey is discussing the discrepancies which have been observed in ordering of civil contracts in IACCS. In turn Mr. Chatterjee tells about his experience wherein as a part of IACCS project he had worked on creating the interface (Radar Data Processing hardware and software) between the old legacy Radars and IACCS system. He was forced to use hardware which were pre-defined and at a very high cost.

As per him even with the high cost of hardware (since the software was written in-house) the cost of one system came to just about Rs 25 lacs. After the systems were proven he was unceremoniously removed from the project and the systems were subsequently outsourced and bought at a huge cost of about Rs 2.5 Crores each. With so many legacy Radars which were integrated to the IACCS the amount of money which has been misappropriated by the top management of BEL would run into hundreds of Crores.

This is again a case where an intelligent IIT graduate Electronics Engineer who did not compromise on corruption and worked for giving the Defence Forces the best at the least cost was harassed and removed from the main stream and made to suffer in his career. This is again in line with what has been brought out in the case of ordering of DDS software where a software worth not more than Rs 20 Crores was being bought at Rs 320 Crores and when one of the Managers in R&D became a whistle blower to stop this from happening he was harassed and bullied to the extent that he was forced to resign.

The Vigilance report which brought out this corruption had also noted that all the original team which worked on software related to IACCS (first phase wherein five nodes were established by BEL) was dismantled and engineers were either transferred out of the Unit or outside the project. Hence the modus operandi is the same in BEL for all persons who stand against corruption. They are harassed, side tracked, given punishment postings or suspended and terminated.   

It can be understood that if one or two persons are targeted but in the project IACCS it is clearly brought out at various stages that persons have been targeted whenever they have spoken about the rampart corruption which is being monitored by the highest level of management in BEL.

If proper investigation is carried out by external government agencies it will clearly come out that in this project from the beginning itself at all stages and in all systems (software, hardware, civil contracts, sub-systems for hardened underground buildings) organized and planned corruption has taken place through a mafia (which may be external to BEL) and with full support from persons sitting at the highest level of BEL.

Some of the conversations of Mr. D.K. Chatterjee are as follows:

• I have talked to Shri Ajay Singh who is involved in the civil works of IACCS. He has also said that there are lots of discrepancies in the civil contracts.

• I was part of IACCS group who interacted with Air Force persons during the initial phase of the project. I was working in Radar Data Processing (RDP) and when we were interfacing with Air Force personnel they also told us that there was something very wrong going on in the project.

• The amount of corruption which is there in the project it does not look that CMD would have any control. If the loot is of the order of Rs 1000 to 2000 Crores, I think a very small part of it would have gone to BEL persons. Persons facilitating this loot in BEL would just get few foreign trips and perhaps some GM promotions. The very fact that Air Force has given BEL the job of civil construction on underground buildings is itself questionable since DRDO already had expertise in this and Air Force could have done this job ( directly through some private vendor) with DRDO help (this shows that the plan was to do all the corruption by just front ending BEL).

• I have also been a part of IACCS project from the very beginning (although I was looking after a very small portion related to RDP) but I also found something strange happening in the project. When I was doing the RDP I was asked by Mr. Anil Pant (the AGM in-charge of IACCS who was indicted by the Vigilance report dated 16th Nov’16 for manipulations in the ordering of DDS software but was subsequently promoted as General Manager) to choose the hardware from a particular vendor (on a single tender basis and at a very high cost from what was available in the market). As per Mr. Pant it was customers requirement to go with a particular vendor (how can customer dictate the vendor).

• Even taking the hardware at a higher cost I was able to make the system in-house at a cost of Rs 25 lacs. The same system they were getting from vendors at almost Rs 2.5 Crores (ten times the in-house cost).

• Although I was doing a very small part of the project the attitude which was there in the

overall project got reflected in this also (as in overall IACCS project they have been going for single tenders for ordering on pre-fixed vendors at much higher costs than available in the market).

• Everyone looked at me as if I have done a very big mistake by developing the system inhouse (maybe because I came on the way of persons making money out of outsourcing the same to pre-fixed vendors). Everyone (including the end user) tried to dissuade me from taking up the in-house development by telling me that the system is required urgently within six months thinking that I will raise my hands due to the impossible time lines set for me for development. Everyone was saying that RDP cannot be made in-house but like a fool I accepted the challenge and when I successfully demonstrated it, I was unceremoniously thrown out of the project.

• It is quite obvious that there is some serious misappropriation going on in the project at the highest level.

It is obvious that since after developing the system at a cost of Rs 25 lacs Mr. D.K. Chatterjee was thrown out of the project the required systems would have been bought at inflated cost (almost ten times) from pre-fixed vendors. This has been the modus operandi in the IACCS project wherein persons who had originally been part of the project and were instrumental in development of software and selection of hardware were unceremoniously removed from the project and a bunch of persons who had nothing to do with the project were placed at the positions where they manipulated the ordering in connivance with the persons at the highest level at BEL for personal gains.

Drdo

Extension for Nirbhay, panel to identify flaws

Leave a comment

By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 07th January 2017
BHUBANESWAR: India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay has got an extension of 18 months amid speculations over the weapon system’s operational capabilities. Launched in 2004, the projected date of completion for the prestigious project was December 31 last.

At a recent review meeting, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar gave green signal for the extension. Ministry of Defence sources said the Nirbhay team has been asked to deliver their best by June, 2018.

Under developmental trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as per the expectations. Of four tests in as many years, the indigenously developed weapon had failed three times though it could cover the intended range once in 2014.

Meanwhile, an independent technical committee has been formed to identify faults in the system that led to failure of the missile during its fourth trial on December 21.

The probe committee led by founder director of ISRO Inertial Systems Unit Dr Nagarajan Vedachalam will not only ascertain the faults but also recommend possible measures to make the system robust.

Like in its maiden trial and third test, the missile had veered off the trajectory minutes after take off during the last launch and the mission had to be aborted mid-air.

An official associated with the project, however, informed that the blame game between two laboratories of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) cost the project more than the faults in the system.

While Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which has designed the missile, has been blaming Research Centre Imarat (RCI) for supplying defective hardware, the latter points fingers at ADE-developed software for recurring failure of the missile.

‘’The probe committee will ascertain which is defective, the software or hardware. It may also inspect metallurgical deficiencies,’’ the sources said.

Having a strike range of around 1,000 km, Nirbhay is first homegrown subsonic cruise missile project. According to DRDO, the missile can challenge weapons of its class.

Nirbhay blasts off like a rocket and unlike a missile, it turns into a vehicle akin an aircraft. Flying at tree-top level, it can deceive enemy radars making it difficult to be detected. Unlike other ballistic missiles, this cruise missile has wings and distinct tail fins. After reaching near the target area, it can hover around, hitting at its will from any direction.

Drdo

DRDO’s cruise missile project Nirbhay on verge of closure

Leave a comment

Nirbhay is the country’s first indigenously built long-range sub-sonic cruise missile | EPS

By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 23rd December 2016
BHUBANESWAR: Once a pride for Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay is on the verge of closure.
A highly placed source told ‘The New Indian Express’ that the project is likely to be closed as the missile has failed to deliver desired results even 12 years after the project was launched. A review of the project will be conducted shortly.
Nirbhay is the country’s first indigenously built long-range sub-sonic cruise missile which can be compared with America’s Tomahawk in terms of its capability. Designed by Bengaluru-based Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), the missile was designed to fly at different altitudes ranging from 500 meters to four km.
Launched in 2004 at a cost of Rs 48 crore, the projected date of completion (PDC) for the prestigious project was December 31, 2016. However, under trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as expected after four attempts in the last four years.
The project has been plagued with difficulties as the scientists are still struggling to fix the problems in the flight control software and navigation system while some others point fingers at the hardware.
While the Research Centre Imarat (RCI) blamed ADE-developed software, ADE was pointing towards the defective hardware supplied by RCI. “However, it could not be ascertained which is defective, whether the software or hardware, but Nirbhay missile failed in its fourth attempt,” an insider said.
There has been problem with the control software since beginning. The RCI had developed navigational hardware for their applications and it was adopted by ADE for Nirbhay. There are always differences between ADE and RCI regarding its functional efficacy, the source claimed.
Defence experts have raised questions on the requirement of such a subsonic missile, which can cruise at a speed of 0.8 Mach, when supersonic cruise missile BrahMos, developed jointly with Russia, is already inducted in the armed forces.
BrahMos, which flies at a speed of Mach 3, has a strike range of 290 km. Though Nirbhay can strike targets 1,000 km away, with India joining the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), it can now develop long range cruise missiles as joint ventures.
While initially the expected cost of ‘Nirbhay’ was around Rs 10 crore per piece, DRDO has so far spent more than Rs 100 crore on R&D and trials.
DRDO Chief Selvin Christopher and Project Director of Nirbhay Vasanth Sastri did not respond to the calls and queries from ‘The New Indian Express’. Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister G Satheesh Reddy, however, said he is unaware of any such move.                           

Drdo

Parrikar to separate roles of DRDO chief and scientific advisor

2 Comments

Shishir Gupta, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| Updated: Mar 21, 2015 00:53 IST
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar has decided to bifurcate the job of secretary (Defence Research and Development Organisation) and scientific advisor (SA) to the minister with the latter now expected to oversee research and development and push the DRDO to a world class level for military technologies.ht parrikarFormer DRDO secretary Chander, who 11th SA to the Raksha Mantri, demitted office on January 31, 2015. South Block sources said while Parrikar has short-listed a panel of around eight young defence scientists for the DRDO job, he plans to bring in an advisor who will be tasked to advise him on the technological and hardware requirements of the armed forces as well as to help enhance technologies for the DRDO laboratories.

“How can SA to RM and DRDO chief be the same person? The job of the former was to keep an eye on the latter working. This is perhaps why the DRDO has lagged behind in developing world class defence technologies and all its major programmes are behind schedule,” said a senior official.

While Parrikar is currently informally advised by retired military officials on requirements of the armed forces, the 12th SA is expected to review the working of the DRDO and fix accountability and time-lines on development of critical technologies. The next DRDO chief will be one of the defence ministry secretaries with three other secretaries as his colleagues.

With PM Narendra Modi’s Make in India centred around defence technologies, future focus will be on DRDO labs developing exportable technologies for hardware production by defence public sector undertaking and Indian companies in joint venture with global defence contractors.

Drdo

Panel wants overhaul in DRDO’s set-up

Leave a comment

Panel wants overhaul in DRDO’s set-up

Rajat Pandit, TNN Mar 19, 2007, 12.13am IST

NEW DELHI: Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has taken yet another hit.

After being slammed for huge time and cost overruns in virtually all its projects, a parliamentary committee has now called for DRDO’s drastic overhaul if it’s to supply cutting-edge weapon systems to the armed forces in time.

 

And the “fundamental changes” must start at the very top. In its latest report tabled in Parliament on Friday, apart from recording Defence Research and Development Organisation’s “disappointing performance”, the Standing Committee on defence expressed its “displeasure”at the scientific advisor (SA) to the defence minister wearing so many hats.

In addition to being the SA, he is also director-general of DRDO, secretary (R&D) and director-general of Aeronautical Development Agency.

This must change, as also DRDO’s penchant for taking too many things on its plate. Venturing as it does even into making juices, mosquito repellents, titanium dental implants and the like, the committee said DRDO must concentrate only on “fundamental and crucial” defence research.

Urging the government to encourage the private sector to come into defence R&D and production in a major way, the committee said DRDO must be made more accountable and open to independent auditing.

A comprehensive national policy should also be formulated to recruit and retain “talented and experienced”scientists in Defence Research and Development Organisation, which has a shortage of around 1,400 scientists, as also promote its closer cooperation with IITs and universities.

Calls for a revamp of Defence Research and Development Organisation, of course, are not new. This newspaper, in several reports, has highlighted that it continues to flounder in developing desperately-needed military capabilities for the country.

Whether it’s the much-touted Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), sanctioned in 1983 but still at least four-five years away from becoming fully-operational, or the bulky Arjun main-battle tank, which the Army is being forced to swallow, the story has remained grim.

With the mind-boggling delays, the costs of most of Defence Research and Development Organisation projects have simply zoomed up. Take the LCA programme. Its initial projected cost was Rs 560 crore.

But now, it stands at Rs 5,490 crore, with another Rs 2,893 crore for its Kaveri engine. By the time the LCA becomes operational, if it does, over Rs 10,000 crore would have been sunk into it.

So, it’s no wonder that India has become the largest importer of military hardware and software in the developing world, notching up arms deals worth $11 billion in just 2004 and 2005.

It will spend another $30 billion over the next five years in armament imports. In view of all this, the parliamentary report expressed the “urgent need” for “a thorough review” of the functioning and organisational set-up of Defence Research and Development Organisation, which has 50 establishments and over 33,000 personnel under its umbrella.

Expressing dismay that DRDO had managed to achieve only 30% indigenisation target as against the 70% target set for the 10th Plan (2002-2007), the panel said the organisation has not been able to achieve its mission of self-reliance in defence production even 48 years after it was established.

Readers’ opinions (3)

asamanja ghose (paris)
19 Mar, 2007 02:16 PM
Dear Editor, Once again, the Parliamentary Committee should have gone much farther in its recommendations. We must institute a thorough judicial inquiry (independent of any and all administrative and political influence) as to why the LCA project and all other important Defence Projects have not yet been completed to date and resulted in such delays and heavy cost over-runs, while forcing the country to spend its meagre Foreign Exchange reserves to import military hardware. For instance, we are being forced to buy 126 Fighter Aircraft. If the LCA had been on time, this would not have been necessary, would it? In my opinion, military hardware-exporting countries and our corrupt politicians, corrupt political parties, and certainly some corrupt scientists in the DRDO are responsible for this state of affairs. They take bribes to design ways and means to delay our projects so as to continue exporting their outdated and “junk” products to India. How is it that no IT raids have ever been carried out on any of the above-mentioned categories of people, but only minor officials have been targeted, just for the form. Why have not the account books of the congress party not been seized and audited thoroughly after allegations that “thales”, the french manufacturer 0f the six diesel-electric submarines from whom india has ordered these, has paid sonia khan (sorry gandhi) a “bakshsish”‘ of 400 crores after the signing of this agreement. it is obvious that rajiv khan (sorry gandhi) did not have as big a stomach to digest the 64 crores that he had taken for the bofors deal and that he did share it with the congress party. Of course, the biggest “boffun” that the Bofors deal exposed was no one to do any thing with the congress, but the self-styled raja v.p. singh, who shouted himself hoarse before being elected prime minister saying that he will unveil the names of all the culprits of this international scandal, but once elected just forgot about it did nothing of the sort. Others like vajpaye and advani did not do much better. are we, as a nation, so cowardly that we are afraid of owning up to and take responsibility for our faults? if we aspire to be a superpower, should we behave like a bunch of sheep or tigers? Should we not start preparing for the day when we will have to tell the USA to get the hell out of the Indian Ocean, as that is our territory, and that they have nothing to do with that any more? Think over all this, dear reader. if these concepts seem too advanced for you, do contact me, i will explain. rest assured, it will be India that will the usa a bloody nose and make them eschew their haughtiness and misplaced sense of superiority. just ask yourself, what is that impostor, cheat and a plain highway robber be without his Indian software developers? What would the USA be without us Indians today? A. GHOSE

viswanath c (mumbai)
19 Mar, 2007 10:08 AM
Many organisations like DRDO are not at all performing well. The entire hierarchy needs to be revamped so that persons who can show results only can remain and exist there. In many cases, such Institutions does not allow youngsters to come forward and in desperation they leve the country. No need to make any hue and cry about depletion or loss of intellectual and technical personnel, let us do some homework to correct ourself!

balasubba raman guruswamy (bangalore)
19 Mar, 2007 08:18 AM
Internal nepotism is the bane of DRDO Labs. The best of brains are demotivated lot. It would be interesting if the ‘heads of the Labs’ are thoroughly investigated on the impact of their personal lives on the working of DRDO, over last 10 to 15 years.