By Pradip R Sagar May 02, 2018 18:29 IST – THE WEEK
DRDO chief S. Christopher (left) with Arun Jaitley, during his brief tenure as defence minister in 2017 | Facebook account of DRDO
With the tenure of S. Christopher, current chief of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), coming to an end later this month, the race for the top post in the country’s premier defence research organisation has begun. Christopher, who was given a one-year extension at the last moment in May 2017, though, is also eyeing another extension. But whether he will be second time lucky is unclear.
Hectic parleys have begun for the coveted post. The key players who are in the race to lead the DRDO include Sudhir Mishra, director general of BrahMos missile system division, and G. Satheesh Reddy, who is presently serving as director general (Missiles & Strategic Systems) and scientific advisor to the defence minister. Besides Mishra and Reddy, P.K. Mehta, who is currently heading the office of the director general of armament and combat engineering systems, is considered to be in the race to head DRDO, which has an annual budget of nearly Rs 20,000 crore.
According to sources in South Block, Reddy is the senior-most scientist in the organisation after Christopher. His name figured prominently last year also, but Christopher managed to get an extension at the last minute, meaning Reddy would need to wait for a year. Former defence minister Manohar Parrikar had bifurcated the post of DRDO chief and scientific advisor to the defence minister, which earlier used to be occupied by one person. Christopher is completing his tenure on May 29.
Mishra, head of BrahMos missile system division—a joint venture between India and Russia— is also among candidates vying for the top post in DRDO.
Mehta, who is heading the Pune-based cluster of armament and combat engineering systems, can be a dark horse in the race due to his proximity with top BJP leaders, sources claimed.
Christopher, who took over as the head of DRDO in May 2015, did his best to impress Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman by showcasing the work done under his leadership towards self-reliance in the recently concluded DefExpo in Chennai. A special pavilion under the ‘Make in India’ theme was inaugurated by Modi, in which all major equipment designed and developed by DRDO were showcased. Last year, Christopher had directed all the labs to remove his photographs, just two weeks before he was to retire. But only at the last minute, he was given extension for a year by the government.
DRDO has often been criticised for delayed projects, as most of its ventures, ranging from the Tejas light combat aircraft to long-range surface-to-air missile systems, have been repeatedly missing deadlines, with huge cost overruns. In the absence of self-reliance in defence, the Indian armed forces continue to be heavily dependent on imports. India continues to top the list of global importers of military hardware, with over 70 per cent of armed forces’ requirements being met by foreign firms. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his first interaction with DRDO scientists in 2014 had sent a stern message to the defence research agency against their ‘chalta hai’ attitude.
Prateek Goyal=Monday, April 2, 2018, Sakal Times
Pune: PK Mehta, Director General of city-based Armament and Combat Engineering Systems (ACE), a Defence Research and Development Organisation establishment, and Major General Ajay Gupta, Director of Ahmednagar-based Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (VRDE) are facing allegations that they have misused their financial powers for sanctioning of fallacious defence projects costing Rs 93 crore.
“Projects worth Rs 93 crore sanctioned allegedly without Army requirement”
A complaint was received by the Prime Minister Office and DRDO HQ, Ministry of Defence, about sanctioning of projects without project requirement from user – the Army in this case. The matter was reported by a serving officer of Indian Army to MOD and PMO.
The complaint letter dated March 11 states that the three defence projects were aggressively pursued by Gupta and sanctioned by Mehta in later half of 2017, without any requirement from the Army.
Corruption in DRDO
A highly placed source in DRDO lab, on condition of anonymity, told Sakal Times that the process of sanctioning of technology demonstration projects in DRDO has become very casual. The projects are being sanctioned without issuance of PSQRs from users’ (Army, Navy, Air Force) participation and requirement. He said, “It’s high time the Ministry conducts an enquiry in sanctioning of projects as there is lot of corruption going on in DRDO.
The sanctioning authority with Mehta is Rs 50 crore per project while Gupta’s power is Rs 5 crore per project. Together they have sanctioned projects worth Rs 93.67 crore.”
Mehta’s defence
When Sakal Times contacted Mehta, he said, “Many a times, users are not aware of the technology so there are projects which are sanctioned without their requirement. It is sanctioned only after being reviewed by various experts. Even after the sanctioning, we have to look for the outcome, because in research and development there are chances that a project can be a failure.”
“Interest of nation is most important and we have to be independent in the manufacturing of defence projects and we are working on it under ‘Make in India’ programme of government,” added Mehta.
Despite repeated attempts to contact Gupta on phone and through texts, he was not available for comment.
Experts fume
KK Mishra, Joint Director (Retd), DRDO, said, “How can they sanction the projects without requirement from users. Defence projects are not some college projects one should remember that huge amount of money is invested in them. Participation of user is required before sanctioning of such projects. Many a times senior authorities sanction such projects for their own benefits. In past also people have sanctioned projects and gained monetary benefits from them.”
Defence expert Lt Gen DB Shekatkar (Retd) said, “It is surprising that a project has been sanctioned without requirement of user. For procurement of any armament or equipment for armed forces, user requirement is necessary. Such matters should be inquired into by Army headquarters.”
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.
Published November 2, 2017 Indian Defence Research Wing SOURCE: ABHOY ROY / FOR MY TAKE / IDRW.ORG
India’s quest to develop Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) started in early 90’s when India’s ADE (Aeronautical Development Establishment), a branch of DRDO was tasked to develop India’s first Nishant UAV based on India Army’s requirement for intelligence gathering platform over enemy territory, which had its first flight in 1995.
Exactly after a decade later, Indian army’s fleet of four home-grown Nishant UAV had suffered crashes and all were lost prompting Army to cancel any future plans to place any further orders for the Nishant UAV.
DRDO second attempts to develop a Medium Altitude Long Endurance unmanned air vehicle began soon after around 2003 with the development of Rustom-1 design based on Rutan Long-EZ Homebuilt aircraft developed by American based Rutan Aircraft Factory.
Rustom-1 was supposed to be Technology Demonstrator platform upon which India had plans to develop a Larger UAV with a flight endurance of over 24 hours in Predator Class. Rustom-1 had its first flight in 2009 and soon there were reports that Indian Army and Indian Navy were interested in using them to replace older Israeli supplied Searcher reconnaissance UAVs.
But few years down the line both Indian Army and Indian Navy decided not to pursue the project any further due to the slow pace of development and lack of meaning full sensor package. Rustom-1 still remains a Technology Demonstrator platform for its larger sibling and there is little hope that it will ever make into full-scale production drone.
Tapas (BH-201 ) which was earlier known as Rustom-II made its first flight last year, but soon it was confirmed in media reports that the first prototype was soon pulled out of flight trials to address technical issues with the program. According to media reports, the first prototype was over-engineered and suffered from weight issues and required considerable re-engineering of turboprop engine section and to its wing section.
The second prototype of Tapas (BH-201 ) is still going through considerable weight reduction measures and is prepped for sensor and payload integration which has already seen delays its first flight planned for in mid of 2017.
DRDO in 2014 again tested for the first time Panchi which is a wheeled version of the Nishant unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on Army’s recommendation but it is still unclear if Army has made any requirement for Panchi UAV and it might also risk of heading dead end like Nishant.
The only project which seems to have got a considerable level of acceptance in Indian armed forces is light-weight Netra Quadcopter which DRDO developed with Mumbai-based Idea Forge and Indian Eagle mini-drone developed by HAL, along with Suchan developed by NAL , but a great deal of MALE and HALE Class UAV programs like Nishant, Panchi, Rustom-1, and Tapas have seen considerable delays in the program and there is no clear deadline when they will enter into production .
Conclusion
India still has a combined tri-service requirement for the acquisition of 150 medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) UAVs for which Request for Information already has been floated by India earlier this year But the Unfortunate truth is that India doesn’t only have troubles perfecting drone technology but is also facing serious delays in projects which are far from over and still continues to face a considerable amount of technological challenges that India is now risk falling behind countries in the region on drone technology.
A solution could be to encourage Private Defence companies in India to come with similar projects which can either help fast track this projects or help develop alternative platforms which can be used by our armed forces to truly make ” Make in India ” Initiative of PM Modi a Success.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
