What to read next

2 Comments

  1. 1

    Abhiman

    Mr. Aroor, I agree with your view that Air Marshall Jayal’s article is unbiased.

    It has been expressed by him also, that the detailed audit/analysis for delays and/or failures must begin with the case studies of 3 most strategic as well as technologically complex projects viz. Tejas, Arjun MBT and Trishul.

    In my view, it may have been overlooked that the present status of Tejas may have been reached over 3 years ago, had it not been for US sanctions or IAF’s midstream request to redesign composite wings in 2004.

    In case of Arjun MBT, it may not be singularly termed as a failure because as per another news report whose link I posted in the article, “M Natarajan on Agni III”, the T-90 also has had “teething” problems in its thermal imaging, Fire-control and overheating. By that same measure, the Arjun should also get repeat orders.
    That the problems of T-90 tanks have been withheld by the media (and army), whereas the Arjun has been regularly and vocally criticized for the very same problems, is an issue of another debate altogether.

    Pinaka has been a partial success, whereas Akash and Nag though delayed cannot be termed as failures because a) they are being initialized for user-trials and b) the services are also responsible for changing their Qualitative Requirements of these missiles at the “11th hour”.

    The opinion of Mr. Jayal (expressed earlier) which I completely agree with is regarding the proposed 5th gen. fighter project PAK-FA with Russia. It was correctly stated by him earlier that India’s contribution in the project will be monetary assistance only and that India shall only be licence producing PAK-FA in the name of “joint venture” or “joint partnership”.

    Thank you.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Mihir Shah

    Nice article… very balanced.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © . All rights reserved.