Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Robotic soldiers working in groups to be reality by 2023: DRDO chief

Discussion in 'Indian Military Doctrine' started by Abhyuday Pratap Singh, Jul 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Abhyuday Pratap Singh

    Abhyuday Pratap Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    122
    Well i will have to do a bit of research on it ^^^^lengthy but a good one^^^ anyway as far as i know International Sanctions imposed led to the delay in Light Combat Aircraft project and Arjun MBT project and as far as the LCA Tejas project is concerned DRDO had to start from the "scratch" to indigenously develop the fighter aircraft as the manufacturing base in the country was non-existent. DRDO had to go through the rigors of development from the scratch where we had to develop the whole range of products. This is not a problem in the foreign countries where everything is available whereas DRDO had to develop everything.

    The LCA project started in the 1980's but soon after Missile Transfer Control Regime (MTCR) came into effect in 1988 due to which all suppliers cancelled their agreements and European firms also stopped cooperation. When such a situation occurred, DRDO had to do everything all by itself. This was a major setback and this situation continued from 1980 till 2000 when the first aircraft was rolled out.

    India did not have any industrial base for avionics, for material. When we wanted to do LCA, there was a lacuna in the whole system
    The LCA is expected to cost around Rs 200 crore per piece, which will still be much less than a foreign fighter of the same class.
    Time was taken to overcome the blocks created by MTCR. This is the reason for the longer time taken.

    And as far as the delays in the Arjun MBT project is concerned, it was due to lack of funds and due to the erstwhile fragile indian economy and other international sanctions imposed which were at their rampant after the 1998 Indian Nuclear Tests in Pokhran
     
  2. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    That was Pathetic defense, I must say that. Nothing can justify their sheer lack of governance of their organization.

    I will wait your research results.
     
  3. neil_diablos

    neil_diablos Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    The economic situation of the country has changes drastically since the 90s. All said and done, DRDO has failed to deliver on time again and again and has delayed delivery of crucial programs. Most of their so called indigenous efforts end up with importing most of the critical components from other countries. Simply assembling it, does not make the product indigenous. As layman pointed out, the LCA is a classic example.

    Bottomline is, when you start the work, you should know what the potential roadblocks could be and you should try work out beforehand what you need to do, in order to overcome those roadblocks and how long it could take potentially. Only then should you go ahead and set a timeline which would be achievable and not just throw a figure in the air for the sake of impressing some stuffed shirts.
     
    2 people like this.
  4. Abhyuday Pratap Singh

    Abhyuday Pratap Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    122
    Let me tell you as far as importing components from other countries is concerned, the majority of components are those components which are to be delivered by the manufacturing sector in India, but are not being delivered as such, how can you expect DRDO to assemble a 9 volt dry cell to power the missile in the lab, it is not their work, it is to be done by the respective industry and the same happened to the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program, after India test-fired the first Prithvi missile in 1988, and the Agni missile in 1989, the Missile Technology Control Regime (then an informal grouping established in 1987 by Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) decided to restrict access to any technology that would help India in its missile development program. Some of the major technology which was denied, included:

    phase shifters for the phased array radars for Akash (denied by the USA).

    magnesium alloy used in Prithvi's wings (denied by Germany).

    servo-valves needed for the electro-hydraulic control systems of Agni and Prithvi.

    gyroscopes and accelerators (denied by France).

    processors – Intel said it would not give India chips for the computers used in Prithvi and Agni.


    To counter the MTCR, the IGMDP team formed a consortium of DRDO laboratories, industries and academic institutions to build these sub-systems, components and materials. Though this slowed down the progress of the program, India successfully developed indigenously all the restricted components denied to it by the MTCR.

    And now tell me is it the work of DRDO to develop computer processors, magnesium alloys and all that stuff, it is to be developed and manufactured by the respective industries of India, which are unable to do so...so now who is to be blamed for this?????

    But now the era is changing indigenous content in India's strategic missiles had gone up to such a level, with ring-laser gyros, composite rocket motors, micro-navigation systems etc., that "no technology control regime" could derail them any longer and the same implies with other projects also and slowly but steadily you will see the revolution in our defence sector :rolleyes:

    But unfortunately many of us criticise DRDO as if its entirely their fault, criticism is ok but to a legit extent, yup they have failed many a times but inspite of discussing the solutions we are discussing the problems and criticising them like that, thats really sad :sad:

    and at last I will again remark ^^^Its easy to criticise, hard to create^^^
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  5. Abhyuday Pratap Singh

    Abhyuday Pratap Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    122
    How can you compare DRDO with ISRO???? these two agencies operate on two absolutely different fields (except from aerospace sector) DRDO is expected to develop everything in the defence sector let it be ballistic missiles or assault rifles, it has a much vast sector to operate and deliver, ISRO didn't have have to go throgh the evils of the MTCR and other international sanctions or they are not suffering with shortage of workforce and qualified engineers and they are not suffering from exodus of engineers from their field and dont forget DRDO borrowed human resources and technology from the same ISRO only Missile scientist A. P. J. Abdul Kalam sir (elected president of India in 2002), who had headed the SLV-3 project at ISRO, moved to DRDO to direct India's missile programme. About a dozen scientists accompanied Abdul Kalam from ISRO to DRDO, where Abdul Kalam designed the Agni missile using the SLV-3's solid fuel first stage and a liquid-fuel (Prithvi-missile-derived) second stage.

    BTW going by your logic on DRDO, ISRO should be heavily criticized for its has not yet developed GSLV whereas all other countries have done so and that too many years ago and why is ISRO still lagging behind in Indian human spaceflight mission for China has already made it in 2003....

    Really??? DRDO has more serious technological challenges than ISRO in their field

    # anyway the ISRO guys are doing excellent in their sector but if you judge DRDO by comparing it to ISRO, that will be stupid thing to do....
     
  6. kaku

    kaku BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,715
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Really, then what the hell importation ban on us of cryogenic engine.

    Man, you are talking like a little child, actually the SLV-3 boosters was developed by the ISRO for the ASLV program. The rocket science is even more complicated than any field including the stealth, see there budgets, the ISRO is utilizing the same budget as of DRDO.

    Becoming a space faring nation is just like blasting out a A-bomb, tell me how many countries in world have the capability of space flight, but you see every countries have the capability to built the tank.

    And yeah, your mighty China, the space flight program of china is mostly even 98% purchased from the russia, read about the Chinese manned mission, then you realize the chinese copy everything from russians even the training program,
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2013
  7. kaku

    kaku BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,715
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2013
  8. Abhyuday Pratap Singh

    Abhyuday Pratap Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    122
    ISRO's previous GSLV flights carried Russian cryogenic engines procured earlier. In total, seven cryogenic stages were procured from Russia of which five stages have been utilised. The space agency had taken up the indigenous cryogenic engine development programme in 1996 following the technology denial regime in the 1990s. The US had then forced Russia to stop giving India the engine technology, but GSLV with Russian cryogenic engine failed and now ISRO has developed its very own which will be hopefully successful.

    wrong DRDO utilizes around twice the budget of ISRO (ISRO with $ 980 million and DRDO with $ 1.8 billion for FY 2013-14)

    Every country???? developing a man-carrying platforms like military aircraft and tanks are not so easy to develop, some countries to name are:- Erstwhile Soviet Union, US, China, Germany, UK, Japan and France are the only ones have developed theirs without any collaboration (China an exception though) and as far as space launch capabilty is concerned JAXA, NASA, CNSA and ESA have done it.

    Missiles and aerospace sector is technologically less challenging, comparatively speaking, than complex, man-carrying platforms like military aircraft and tanks. Even AGNI 5 can take a 50 kg payload to space. And ISRO’s contributions to DRDO in its missile programmes, played down for reasons related to international technology denial regimes, must be taken to be significant.But it would be too uncharitable to deny the many hard-working scientists of DRDO their due credit, and their happiness in these projects would be shared by all those concerned about India’s indigenous capabilities.

    #Please stop comparing DRDO with ISRO
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2013
  9. kaku

    kaku BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,715
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    You have said my point in your word. the cryogenic transfer was denied by the Russia because of the US pressure and the legitimacy f the MTCR. MTCR was much worse for ISRO than DRDO.

    yeah, every country, take a look on that list
    List of main battle tanks by generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    the tank is developed by every countries whose economy somehow allows it, by Japan, Israel,China, Ukraine,UK, Russia, Italy, Poland,France, Iran, South Korea etc etc.

    But can you list me how many countries are in the space faring nation ( dont include the ESA or Ukraine, as most of the technology used by ESA is developed from the France and UK, and Ukraine got all technologies from its successor SU ).
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2013
  10. Anees

    Anees Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,694
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    Country Flag:
    United States
    I don't understand why they are announces everything before finishing the work.....:dude::fuu:

    DRDO does not understand the value of Time....:hang2:
     
  11. Abhyuday Pratap Singh

    Abhyuday Pratap Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    122
    Please exclude Ukraine, Poland, Iran and all other former SU countries, these countries have just derived their tank designs from erstwhile Soviets (mainly the T series) (click on their tanks on the same page you referred) and the List for countries with space tech are:-

    SU now Russia, US, Japan, China, France, UK and why to exclude ESA, how can countries like Luxembourg to have their own space programmes????

    ^^^more or less the same countries^^^

    And i strongly disagree with your statement that "MTCR was much worse for ISRO than DRDO", yup it was a hurdle for ISRO but for DRDO it was no less than a nightmare, ISRO even got some help from the Russians in cryogenic engines but DRDO was denied access to such critical technologies on a whole.

    #Again Please stop comparing DRDO with ISRO
     
  12. Rock n Rolla

    Rock n Rolla Lt. Colonel STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    5,900
    Likes Received:
    2,787
    [MENTION=9955]Abhyuday Pratap Singh[/MENTION]

    DRDO has only itself to blame for the current issues, people have lost faith because DRDO always promises it'll deliver, but never manages to do by that date & then it is delays.....delays....delay again !!

    DRDO's missile program is a good & successful one :tup:
    But the other projects (like LCA, Arjun...) that've been going on for years & still far away from induction is what worries most people.

    Once DRDO delivers 'issue free' LCA & Arjun, then people will certainly have a positive opinion regarding DRDO.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. kaku

    kaku BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,715
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    So, you think Germany ( after the fall of berlin wall ) , Czech, Denmark, Finland, Greece, ireland, italy, Luxemburg, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland , Canada have the capability of space faring nation.

    Actually, the Ariane program is only created by the France and UK, and all other is just eating the apple.

    Ok, about the Poland and Ukraine, but when was the Iran was in the Iron curtain. And most of these countries developed there third gen MBT after the fall of SU ( within 2-3 yrs after the fall ) .

    And how so that DRDO suffer more of MTCR, the ISRO helped in every sector of missile program, including Prithvi and Agni program.
     
  14. kaku

    kaku BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,715
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    And if you are thinking that the MTCR just hurdle the ISRO's cryogenic engines than I say you dont know about the Indian Space program, every one knows about the who was the head of the Prithvi missile or Agni, but do you know who was the head of the SLV,ASLV, PSLV or GSLV programs and even who was the head of the cryogenic engine program. The development of cryogenic engine is same like developing a stealth plane, but the ISRO done his work. It is very much a critical technology.
     
  15. Abhyuday Pratap Singh

    Abhyuday Pratap Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    122
    Atleast they are providing them with capital and contributing to ESA budget, so we cant say "all other is just eating the apple"
    Source:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency#Member_states_and_budget
    Quoting your source only "The Zulfiqar is believed to be developed from major components of the Russian T-72 and American M48 and M60 tanks." Fall of SU doesnt mean that they had not imported the same from SU, Their MBT project stated in 1993 and SU collapsed in 1991 source:- Zulfiqar (tank) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And thats the reason I am saying why to criticise DRDO like that, many of us criticise DRDO as if its entirely their fault, criticism is ok but to a reasonable extent, yup they have failed many a times but inspite of discussing the solutions we are discussing the problems and criticising them like that, thats really sad.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page