Tag Archives: UAV

Uncategorized

DRDO Decay Part 1: Keeping end users in dark, poor planning, flouting of SOPs hurt UAV projects, reveals CAG test audit

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Feb 27, 2020

  • A test audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General examining the working of Aeronautical Development Establishment reveals that the lab is taking up projects aimlessly without any focus and priority, spending money on research which has been abandoned without completion.
  • The projects undertaken by the ADE from 2007 to 2017 (10 years) were selected for review under the test audit of CAG.
  • While decoding the reasons for such a high failure rate, the audit said, the main reason was non-involvement of user representatives in neither in the pre-project work nor during project execution. Editor’s Note: This is the first part of a two-part series of investigation on irregularities in the UAVs development programme by ADE for forces as unearthed by a CAG audit. The second part focuses on how drones costing hundreds of crores failed to lift off. New Delhi: More than a decade ago P Rama Rao Committee in a report to the then defence minister AK Antony in 2008 had asked for a complete overhaul of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the country’s premier research and development agency for the armed forces. Since then, the debate within the armed forces community has been centred on whether the DRDO which has an annual budget running into thousands of crores disappointed the forces or it was able to meet their expectations.
Rustom UAV developed by DRDO. Image courtesy

It is in the national interest to empower the DRDO, make it more efficient with indigenous technology. However, year after year, the criticism of DRDO for not meeting the requirement of the armed forces continues to grow. The tales of DRDO’s successes have been lauded by the government in the past but the inefficiency, which has far-reaching consequences for national security, is too glaring to be ignored.

A test audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) examining the working of Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) reveals that the lab is taking up projects aimlessly without any focus and priority, spending money on research which has been abandoned without completion and even projects which are said to be completed have no takers within the armed forces community.

The report unearths dismal performance pointing out that out of the 10 completed projects in 10 years, only two projects were able to achieve the objectives. The mission of ADE is to develop and lead to the production of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and aeronautical systems to meet the needs of the services and progressively enhance the technological infrastructure and capabilities. However, the audit report claimed that ADE is unable to meet its mission objective.

The report reviewed by Firstpost is scathing on ADE’s floating ventures. It said: “ADE undertook its projects without adhering to the provisions of Procedures for Project Formulation and Management (PPFM), both during planning as well as execution stage. Non-adherence to provisions of PPFM resulted in project deliverables for which no users could be identified and resultantly, the products developed could not be productionised and used by the services.”

The audit pointed out another interesting fact that except for pilotless target aircraft named Lakshya designed and developed by ADE way back in the 1990s, no other ADE product has been inducted into the armed forces.

“This indicated that R&D effort at ADE was not fructifying into usable products for armed forces,” the report observed.

A DRDO spokesperson did not comment on the findings of the test audit report. However, he said ADE is the centre of excellence for the flight control system of manned and unmanned aircraft in India.

“ADE has developed Full Mission Simulator for LCA which is installed at ADE and is also upcoming at IAF squadrons. ADE has developed and delivered Computerised Pilot Selection System (CPSS) in 2014 which is commissioned at three air force stations with 20 psychomotor and 100 cognitive terminals at each air force station for the pilot selection process of IAF,” the DRDO spokesperson said.

An email questionnaire sent to the Director, ADE, seeking response on the audit findings remained unanswered till the filing of this report.

Distressing details

The projects undertaken by the ADE from 2007 to 2017 (10 years) were selected for review under the test audit of CAG. As per PPFM, which outlines procedures and formats for preparing project proposals, peer review and project closure etc., 16 projects costing about Rs 2,306 crore were undertaken in different categories.

There are broadly five categories — Mission Mode (MM), Technology Demonstration (TD), Science & Technology (S&T), Product Support (PS) and Infrastructure & facilities. The audit in its findings has unearthed non-compliance at the pre-project stage and slammed ADE for the lackadaisical approach.

It said that the projects were initiated without adequate caution and groundwork, which resulted in either product developed by ADE not meeting the user requirement or no user service showing interest in these products. There is also an observation about non-compliance in preparing feasibility report and the audit said that out of 16 projects examined, no feasibility report was prepared with respect to nine projects.

Moreover, the ADE has been criticised for not having user agency (armed forces or paramilitary) on peer review committee board which is required under PPFM to discuss existing systems in use with them and elsewhere in the world and other details about the operation, maintenance and use of the product.

“Involving users in project progress reviews help into cutting short the delays and to know their views in advance and also to keep continuous visibility of the project. Audit found that out of the 16 projects examined, there was no user representation in the project monitoring in 13 projects,” the report said.

Another issue that has been highlighted is the lack of outcome realisation plan, which is primarily to ensure that stages of the project are managed in a satisfactory manner. The utilisation of the project’s outputs are linked to the planned project outcomes and success of the project’s output are assessed and corrective action are taken.

The audit found that out of the 16 projects examined, outcome realisation plan was not prepared in respect of 11 projects. Then there is the issue of time overrun as well as cost overrun. The report said at least 10 projects out of 16 were delayed for a period ranging from six months to six years. The audit found that the cost in respect of three projects was revised upwards ranging from Rs 40 lakh to Rs 369 crore.

“Two projects are still ongoing and further increase in cost cannot be ruled out,” the audit findings revealed.

Another shocking fact in the audit findings is about the procurement of Rs 4.34 crore worth equipment that was received by the ADE after the closure of four projects and remained unitized for the intended purpose for which they were procured.

Negligible success rate of projects

The audit revealed that objectives were achieved only in two out of 10 completed projects. All types of DRDO projects are taken up for execution by the lab after being sanctioned by the competent financial authority. The sanction clearly mentions about the objectives of the project which subsequently becomes the benchmark to assess the success of the project. ADE completed 10 projects out of 16 projects it undertook in 10 years (2007-2017).

“Success rate in achieving the objectives of the project was only 20 percent as ADE could achieve the project objectives in only two out of 10 completed projects and eight projects were closed without achieving objectives,” the audit said.

While decoding the reasons for such a high failure rate, the audit said, the main reason was non-involvement of user representatives in neither in the pre-project work nor during project execution.

“As a result, when the project was developed, either there were no takers or the deliverable did not meet the requirements of the services. In respect of one project even though user representative was involved in the development activities, the product could not be successfully developed by ADE to match the user requirement,” the audit disclosed in the report.

The report further observed that there were instances of projects being short-closed without realising objectives, project deliverable not finding any users, inordinate delays in execution of projects and project goals being changed midway.

Drdo

DRDO lab up in arms against scientist’s transfer

10 Comments

The employees of the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which is regarded as one of the most distinguished labs of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), are up in arms against what they have called arbitrary transfer.

By ABHINANDAN MISHRA | New Delhi | 28 January, 2018 Sunday Guardian

The employees of the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which is regarded as one of the most distinguished labs of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), are up in arms against what they have called arbitrary transfer of a scientist who last year was named the “best lab scientist of DRDO”.

According to ADE officials, the said scientist, who has been working with the DRDO for 30 years, is being victimised for not agreeing with his seniors who wanted materials for a project to be procured from a particular company, despite the said company not matching the requirements of the project.

On 16 January 2018, on the ground of “public interest”, A.P.V.S. Prasad, “scientist-G”, who was made the project director of the coveted RUSTOM-II UAV programme of the DRDO in 2015, was moved out of the ADE to another DRDO lab in Bangalore without any notice and without taking the permission from his director.

However, official sources said that Prasad was being pressurised to give his permission to procure products for the UAV programme from a company whose product did not match the requirements of the project and when he did not relent, he was transferred.

Prasad has been credited with making sure that the much delayed India’s UAV programme got the needed push. Within two years of Prasad taking over the project, RUSTOM-II completed its maiden flight, earning him the best DRDO scientist award in 2017. An angry employees’ union of the ADE has now approached Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to intervene in the matter. Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, S. Narayanappa, who is president of the ADE civilian employees’ union, said that discriminatory transfers like this affect the morale of the scientists.

“I have been trying to speak to Dr S. Christopher (chairman of DRDO) on this issue but he is not taking my calls or responding to our messages. It was due to this that we were forced to approach the Defence Minister directly. Prasad is a very capable scientist which is clear from the work that he has done. His transfer, without taking even his director into confidence, is shocking. We are still awaiting a response from the Defence Minister. You can just imagine the kind of damage these kinds of things do to an official’s morale. He was offered multiple employment opportunities from various private corporate entities to head their division but he rejected them all,” Narayanappa said.

Drdo

Rustom-II UAV to be tested in Chitradurga

Leave a comment

Kalyan Ray, New Delhi, Jul 11, 2016, DHNS
dh 11The first flight of India’s new combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Rustom-II is scheduled to be held by the end of July in Chitradurga test flight range.

Scientists at the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) would move to the test range later this week for the trial as an window between July 28 and August 2 would be kept open for the flight in the presence of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar.

Once ready, the medium-altitude, long-endurance (Male) UAV is likely to be an asset for the military not only for its surveillance capability, but also for its ability to be used as an unmanned armed combat vehicle in the line of the US’s Predator that New Delhi is interested to buy.

“Rustom-II is a very big platform with a range of 250 km. However, for the first flight we will be flying it up to a distance of 50-100 km,” said a source associated with the UAV’s development.

Compared to Rustom-I that was test flown for the first time in November 2009, Rustom-II will be having Electronic Intelligence, Communication Intelligence, Medium and Long-Range Electro-optic Payloads and Synthetic Aperture Radar that will enable it to see through the clouds.

“Rustom-I is a primitive vehicle with minimal capabilities. Rustom-II, on the other hand, has several capabilities, including the ability to carry weapons,” G Satheesh Reddy, Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri, told DH.

Once fully ready, Rustom UAVs are meant to replace Israeli Heron unmanned aerial vehicles being used by the air force and the navy. The aircraft is named after former Indian Institute of Science professor Rustom Damania, who pioneered aviation research in India in the 1980s.

Addressing a seminar on UAV in Delhi last November, an ADE official stated that the three services initially projected a requirement of 76 of these platforms.

However, like many other defence research and development organisation (DRDO) projects, Rustom-II is also facing time overrun as the production schedule, first fixed for 2016, has now been pushed to 2017 with the possibility that it may get further delayed.

The biggest challenge faced by the scientists is the excess weight of the airframe. The airframe had a weight of about 2,400 kg by 2015 end, which ADE scientists would have to bring down to about 1,700 kg in the final version for accommodating every sensor package.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Bharat Electronics Ltd partners DRDO in the development of Rustom-II and has committed several hundred crores as financial support.

Drdo

DRDO spending crores, but no positive outcome

2 Comments

http://bit.ly/TymtzY 

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/drdo-spending-crores-but-no-positive-outcome/282007-3.html

Bhupendra Chaubey, CNN-IBN

New Delhi: The Defence Research and Development organisation, country’s premier body for development of defence related technology, has allegedly spent crores of rupees in the name of expenditure on technology, but there has been no positive outcome.
A top secret audit of DRDO ordered by Defence Minister AK Antony has revealed that there is virtual lack of transparency in decision making mechanism in the organisation, which was created to look after country’s defence needs. With a budget of over Rs 10,000 crore DRDO has enjoyed full mandate from successive governments for over six decades.
The audit accessed by CNN-IBN reveals that financial sanctions are being split so that they don’t have to go to higher authorities. Programme for development of main battle tank Arjun was sanctioned at Rs 69.99 crore. However, the entire programme was split into smaller sub-heads so that higher ups within the system could be avoided.
The fact that projects under DRDO have been delayed extensively is well known. Now the report also raises questions about how the DRDO is taking decisions.
Product support and product improvement of NAG weapon system was sanctioned at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore, despite the fact that the Cabinet Committee on Security approved similar programme was still in the pipeline.
The cost of UAV and aerostat was brought down just to ensure that no higher authority could question the financial approval given.
Several split sanctions were also issued for renovation of DRDO Bhawan while unauthorised sanction of Rs 49.15 crore to develop vehicle testing facility from public accounts mainly for civilian use was also granted.
The report further says that a project for development of satellite signal monitoring was sanctioned at a cost of Rs 29.96 crore without any formal requirement from the defence services. While the project was still on, a sanction of Rs 24.5 crore was given for procurement of a similar technology.
There have been several arbitrary costing of products under garb of development like sanction of Rs 14.5 crore for development of four stroke cylinder engine technology. But the parties chosen by the DRDO didn’t have adequate research capabilities. The report goes on to say that the DRDO has facilitated entry of foreign companies in certain areas and the projects being undertaken are not for development but for the entry of foreign vendors.
The report says that Dr VK Saraswat gave an improper approval for a grant of Rs 2.8 crore to a society which he heads himself. Further scrutiny even revealed that the body which got the aid didn’t have expert manpower.
Several irregularities have also been detected in appointment of chairpersons of different organisations with huge amounts being spent on it.
However, the defence minister has refused to react to these findings.
On the other hand the DRDO has refuted the allegations.
“DRDO strongly refutes observations made in the report and is in the process of compiling its responses despite the fact that the findings of audit already stand vitiated. Since laid down procedure was not followed and the report was issued without authorisation, the matter is under examination and correspondence with the concerned. All laid down procedures are being followed by DRDO in a transparent manner and interests of the State are the sole consideration during the process of decision making,” said DRDO Director Ravi Gupta.
Now through this report questions are being raised about how DRDO is taking decisions.

Drdo

Scientist Leaving DRDO — Why call Attrition?

Leave a comment

Dear friends while surfing I found the very sensible analysis of DRDO problems/solutions by Sh R C Chakraborty, Ex Director, DTRL, DRDO.

Prabhu Dandriyal

Scientist Leaving DRDO — Why call Attrition?

June 23, 2007, posted by rnyreaders http://myreaders.wordpress.com/,

R C Chakraborty,-rcchak@gmail.com

http://www.myreaders.info/02_Scientist__leaving__DRDO.pdf

The DRDO Directors’ Conference held on February, 21, 2007 was effective in a sense that media started reminding about DRDO functioning more frequently. For example, the dissatisfaction expressed by the Parliament’s standing committee on defence, the Minister A.K. Antony asking DRDO to answer for the huge delays in high profile projects, the concern expressed by Defence Services on DRDO projects and deliverables, the criticism of the individuals and an appreciation for the Government action in short listing private firms for granting the status of Rakshya Udyog Ratna. DRDO of course tried to read in between the lines, expressing — “High attrition rate of young scientists … The DRDO’s representation to the Pay Commission . . . proposals to increase salaries of its scientists to arrest the exodus ? . . . and so on “. Extracts from few such reporting are reproduced below for quick reference.

• Address at the DRDO Directors’ Conference, dated 21/02/2007, by the President Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, The Hindu, dated 22/02/2007, “Set goal for self-reliance in defence systems”: Kalam , by Special Correspondent. President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Defence Minister A.K. Antony on Wednesday asked defence scientists to bring about a change in their functioning to deliver on India’s requirements of futuristic weapon platforms. “When an organization functions; for over five decades …..A change in the organizational culture is required based on present-day technology and infrastructure . . . . Advising that the DRDO be reorganized after every five years based on the dynamics of organizational missions. Mr. Antony … asked them to be prepared to answer for the huge delays in some of the high profile projects……..

• Indian_Express_dated 14/06/2007: DRDO Scientists are leaving to the greener avenues available in the Private Sector. More than 300 Scientists and Technical staff have left DRDO in the year 2006.

• Tribune_Chandigarh dated 28/04.2007 : “During 2002-2006, . . . 1,007 scientists left DRDO due to increased opportunities available in the private sector,” DRDO is seeking a four-fold increase in salaries . . . from the Sixth Pay Commission.

• Citizen Journalism, citizenxpress.com dated 15/0612007 Because of better career prospects nearly 33% of people who loin DRDQ quit (attrition rate as BPO), nearly 20% use DRDQ as stepping stone, nearly 13% are having due to lack of professional challenge and 8% leave DRDO looking for advancement and additional qualifications.

• The Hindu dated 23/12/2007 Defence Minister, A K Antony said “concerns had been expressed in various quarters over the functioning or the DRDO. The time has come to look ‘toward and see whether the organization is tuning itself adequately, to the changing time.

• Hindustan Times, dated 17/06/2007: 1,007 DRDO scientists quit in five years.

  • DRDO criticized for huge time and cost overruns its multifarious projects, saw  1007 scientist quitting in the last five years, Parliament was informed Thursday
  • Earlier this week, Antony had served notice on DRDO to quickly rectify the defects in the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) it has been developing since 1970s or the government would be wind up the project.
  • Indian Army refused to induct the tank citing 14 major technical defects.
  • A parliamentary panel, last month rapped the DRDO for failing to meet its import substitution targets by as much as 50 per cent, saying hue overruns in its big ticket projects -warranted a “thorough review” of its functioning.
  • Parliaments standing committee report on the DRDO: During the 10th Plan (2002- 07), targeted 70% indigenization, only 30-35% could be achieved. Even after 48 years of its formation has not achieved its targeted mission of self reliance. Urgent need for a thorough review’ of its functioning and organizational structure “to increase its efficiency”. Pointing delays in the MBT, LCA and its Kaveri engine, and integrated guided missile development programme (IGMDP). Noting “No scientific audit at any point of time of DRDO and its projects”, recommended that the organizations projects “must be audited by external and independent groups of experts approved by the government.

• Bharat Rakshak, Consortium of Indian Defence Website, dated 11/06/2007, India’s R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector, Times of India, 19/06/2007: Godrej has big plans for military hardware. The $1.7 billion Godrej Group plans to give a major push to its military equipment supply, creating private Sector in manufacturing defence hardware. Already in nuclear and space technology and now plan to vigorously pursue in defence. Group Chairman Adi Godrej said. . . supplier of airframe sections for the Brahrmos missile, supply o equipments for satellite launch, nuclear sector, and refineries. Government short listed 1,3 private firms for granting the status of Rakshya Udyog Retna. The list was handed over to Defence Minister A K Antony by Probir Sengupta, the chairman of the government-appointed selection committee, on June 6.

•The Indian Express dated 23/06/2007, “Just DRDO won’t do’, why India has MNCs in IT, pharma, telecom but not in defence research. by Milind Deora, 2 1/11/2006.

  • In 1958, the DARPA was set up by USA, Dept of Defense and same year India established the RDO. While DARPA has been a huge success DRDO still hasn’t been able to achieve its vision — everything that really matters in the Indian military is stilt imported.
  • A special CAG review in 2000 of found: almost 50 per cent of the DRDO’s budget was spent on salaries; present ratio of scientists to other support personals is 1:5 in DRDO compared 1: 0.7 to DARPA.
  • World -class scientists are acquired from private sector and universities, Supporting personals are temporary, hired from other agencies so that DARPA doesn’t have to support them on a permanent basis.
  • US defence budget is almost 25 times larger than that of India, but then DARPA’s annual budget is only twice that of DRDO’s, because DARPA is focused on high-end technologies, leaving other- systems to industry. This has enabled it to stay lean.
  • For Arjun MBT and Akash missile, DRDO needs to follow better management practices to deliver indigenous technologies to the military. The production of juices and insect repellants are other instance where the DRDO urgently needs to rethink is focus.
  • DROD labs should avoid any kind of overlap and duplication. The organization must, draw up a list of future technologies based on certain criteria and go after them aggressively.

— First strategic  technology that no  country may sell to India— e.g., nuclear weapons, surveillance and communications  satellites and long range cruise missiles.

–       Second, technologies which are heading towards a global monopoly like conventional submarines  presently being sold at very, high price.

–     Third, future technologies on drawing boards all over the world — like unmanned  combat  aerial vehicles (UCAV5), unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and robot soldiers.

  • If our other scientific and research organizations can make the world’s most competitive satellite launch vehicles, we can surely do the same for defence technologies.

• intent Blog, http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2OO6/12/how India .can s.hgj, dated 14/12/2006, How India Can Stop Subsidizing Russia And Israel by Milind Deora, India can build strong indigenous capabilities while creating competitive benchmarks for DRDO through the active participation of the private sector. . . If India has built world- class multinationals in sectors such as information technology and pharmaceuticals, both of which are knowledge-driven industries, we could easily create a handful of defence multinationals in less than a decade. . . A small nation like Israel accounts for a 10th of world defence sales and approximately a 5th of its exports are defence- related. While India had an annual import bill of around $5 billion last year, we exported a paltry $47 million worth of arms. Pakistan, which lacks industrial base, exported nearly twice as much. . . In addition to reforming the DRDO, the viability of select DPSUs, especially those not dealing with core areas like the production of missiles and warheads, should also be re-examined and certain products like food products should ether he scrapped or outsourced to lower-cost vendors.

Expressing such dissatisfaction, criticism or concern about DRDO accomplishment is not new. After the Kargil war (1999) DRDO activities were subjected to some scrutiny and a few reforms were suggested, but Not much was done on those recommendations (The Indian Express, 23/06/2007). Also, commenting on the DRDO in isolation, without looking at the higher defence management framework within which it is placed, would perhaps lead to incomplete or even flawed deductions,

Assuming that what all is said is correct, then DRDO must be 1ooking for alternatives to its failures, which means DRDO is preparing to take few “hard decisions”.

Some hard decisions I have in my mind which I would like to share are.

1. GET RID OF THE STUFF DRDO SHOULD GO WITHOUT.

2. All System Development projects and programs should be taken out of DRDC, because of very little R&D opportunity. The R&D element is just 10% while 90% is engineering design, fabrication, testing, integration, field trials, acceptance and management. Each of these better done elsewhere and not by R&D mind. The implementation responsibility would also he oti those who do these 90c/o work and finally on a Board. DRDO contribution, claim, responsibility, budget allocation, manpower, infrastructure, and management should relate to that 10% only.

3. Further, the Most Technology Demonstration projects should also be take ii out of DRDD. The reason is same said above. The R&D elements in these TD projects are just 40% or less. Indian industries, particularly the private sectors, offer better compensation and therefore have better human resources. They would better absorb this 40% R&D elements along with rest 60% activity.

4. Lastly, a few Technology Demonstration projects where R&D elements are 40% or more and all the S&T projects where R&D elements are 100%, there DRDO has it primary role that is : “Convert scientific know- how into usable technologies. Here also DRDO need to evolve partnership with the academic institutions, funded by government or privately managed. All such projects are identified as (a) Basic Research that produces new knowledge in scientific or technology areas of interest to the military and (b) Applied Research that supports the exploratory development of new technologies for specific military applications or further development of existing technology for new military applications. The procedures followed by DARPA can be adopted to ensue transparence, equal opportunity, accountability, quality and most importantly revealing what followed next.

My best regards to friends in DRDO, a great organization that helped me to grow over a period of 30 years