What to read next

2 Comments

  1. 1

    Abhiman

    As per the latest statements by CAS of PAF, Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, the PAF shall procure 200-250 JF-17 fighters.
    It was also stated by him that the matter of RD-93 engines has been resolved “amicably”.

    In my view, what may be evident is the extremely close co-operation, co-ordination and mutual planning between the PAF and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Kamra. In fact the PAF Chief always represents or makes statements on behalf of PAC. His statements regarding the cost of the JF-17, its exports, etc. are indications that PAC Kamra has high level of interaction with the PAF. Same may be said between the Pak Army and the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT).

    This level of co-operation is unlike that in India, where a “step-motherly” relation may exist between the IAF and HAL/DRDO, which is evident from a statement of CAS Mr. Tyagi : “DRDO let us down”.
    This may be impossible in Pakistan.

    It is well-known that the development of the JF-17 was a closely synergised effort between the PAF and PAC (although the total effort being limited to funding and specifying parameters to CAC, Chengdu only). Such working is more pronounced in the case of the Al-Khalid which was developed in co-operation between the Army and HIT (though again with Chinese input).

    There may be many reasons for this like a military rule, which oversees development activity. Also there is obvious co-operation when state-owned firms build hardware for the armed forces.
    Such co-operation is unfortunately completely absent in India.

    It may be said with certainty that there are definitely “bad” relations between the HAL/DRDO and the armed forces, when the CAS makes a “scathing” public statement that, “DRDO let us down”. The development of the Arjun tank, Tejas etc. has undergone extremely poor co-ordination and co-operation. This is despite both of them being state-owned firms, which are meant to produce hardware for the Indian forces; in contrast, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon etc. co-operate substantially with the armed forces at every stage of the project cycle.
    In case of the Tejas, only stating the ASRs and sending test-pilots for flight-testing may be inadequate. In case of Arjun, as told by a member at a discussion board, the initial requirement was for a 105mm gun, which was changes after many years to 120mm. Upto 1998-2000, the requirements and equipment were changed numerous times, so much so that at many stages, almost new projects may have been said to have been initiated.

    There were also many critical comments made by Army officials in media regarding the Arjun. Some officials from DRDO also refuted by claiming that the army has no trained personnel to drive a modern tank like the Arjun.

    The HAL/DRDO may be to blame also, because the interactions between the armed forces and them may “reek” of “ego” matters.

    Thank you.

    References :
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=6815
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=6854

    Note :
    1] The statement of Mr. Tyagi may not be “justified”, because the specifications of Akash have been revised. If the IAF can keep revising its own strategy and plans based upon the ageing Pechora or Igla missiles, then I think that a block-1 Akash missile(which is more advanced than Pechora) can be accepted before a longer-range version is developed.

    2] The IAF has announced that a team will be sent to facilitate development of the Tejas, however I think that this must have been many years earlier.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Abhiman

    The following articles in ‘THE WEEK’ magazine are a comprehensive article that in its words, “tell DRDO’s side of the story”.

    As per the article, the services especially the IAF and IA are also largely to be blamed for their non-patronizing of indigenous systems.

    1) Rigorous tests for indigenous systems are laid, but the requirements from foreign systems are considerably relaxed if prices are reduced.

    2) Many changes in the requirements are made mid-way of the project. Case in point :- In 2004, the IAF requested that changes be made to Tejas’ composite wing structure to in IAF’s words, “to cater to weapon definition changes”. This was done after Tejas had logged a few hundred test flights.

    The Nag missile has also been delayed in part due to the “sudden” increment in range demanded by IAF and IA.

    3) From point 1, there is clearly and undeniable “contempt” of indigenous equipment.

    It is true that most members of the English media may find a quicker rapport with the “Sherwood-style” IMA Dehradun educated, non-technical and liquor “afficionado” Army (and also IAF) officers. There is indeed a cultural cohesiveness between the service officers and the (neo-secular) English Media, that is not unnoticed.

    This is in contrast to the mostly traditional and cultural atmosphere at ISRO (whose scientists send a satellite for Tirupati darshan), and the “Indianised” atmosphere at DRDO.

    This in my view, is complete unjustified bias of the highest order not just towards DRDO, but also towards journalistic ideals also.

    It may thus be hoped that the media is completely unbiased and has the best interests of Indian defence not just “problems” of the IAF and IA”.
    I may also say that Nationalism is not entirely a negative ideal; in moderation it is beneficial and desirable.

    Thank you.

    References :
    http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc10001nq1.jpg
    http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc20001tj6.jpg
    http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc30001lr5.jpg

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.