No Ad

What to read next


  1. 1


    Shiv, you promised the army GSQR on MBT2020. We are waiting…

  2. 2


    Just another guy here, every time i pick up the paper it seems we are testing something or the other (weapons), and yet when ever Indian military photographs are seen all i see are imported items, all the reasons that i could follow through the net were the very same reason that are given to justify/explain rest of the naional scene.

    How on earth are we going to make anything effective if we do not forcefully induct a product(low quality it may be) and improve it where it matters (on the field), i was born in 1982 and since then it seems all the projects are still in the test bed phase.

    The Akash missile system should have been inducted in the AirForce and Army by now, with them breathing down on DRDO’s neck to improve the system.

    Is it just me or has logic taken a back seat?

  3. 3


    Mr. Aroor, I’m afraid but the report by Mr. Suman Sharma contains some inaccuracies. Overall, the fulcrum of discussion of the article is that the blame lies on DRDO with implied meanings and assumptions of the IAF being correct always.

    The first paragraph explicitly mentions Rs. 423 crores in development, in an attempt to convey what he perceives as high cost. The reporter may be reminded that 11.5 crores were paid immediately per Barak missile in 2000 (total of 200 missiles). Thus the 423 crores spent over a span of 25 years on the development of Akash is very small comparitively.

    This warrants immediate attention : With a “peanuts” budget on indigenous weapon systems, only so much can be achieved. The “lions share” of the budget is spent on imports, thus keeping DRDO wanting for funds. This in turn results in delays and a further excuse to procure more imported hardware. In this way, the cycle continues.

    Also, the IAF had in 2006, under the then Air Chief Mr. Tyagi had given assurances that Akash would be trailed in February of 2007, and that the IAF would negotiate with DRDO for the Trishul’s parameters for user-trials. None of this has been done, whereas despite the fact that the IAF has already purchased SPYDER missile syatems from Israel after only a few tests held in 2005. The Akash has also had numerous successful tests over the years, where it has hit various types of targets (videos of 2 such tests are available on the internet).

    Consider this :- the Barak had a 50% rate of failure since tests conducted between 1994- or 1996-2000 as per a note sent by the then Scientific advisor, Dr. Kalam to the defence ministry. Even after purchasing the Barak, the Navy has admitted to 2 failures in its own tests (one of which was witnessed by PM Dr. Manmohan Singh). Now, in contrast during the period of 2003-2006 the Trishul has had exactly 14 successful tests out of 20, but still the IAF/Navy refused to accept it.

    This is followed by a hasty, quiet but firm interest shown in Delilah and Crystal Maze missiles from Israel, none of which have ever been showcased to the IAF.

    The IAF has never been actively involved in the 23 years of development of either the Tejas combat jet, the Akash, Trishul, Dhruv and whatever hardware that concerns it. It is as though it is an “aloof customer”. We may compare this to Pakistan, where the PAF played a managerial role in overseeing the development of the sin-pak JF-17 combat jet, even though as a member from BR forum rightly said that, “the JF-17 has not a nut & bolt of Pakistan’s name”.

    Thank you.

  4. 4


    what happened to Trishul and Nag System. Are they closed for ever


Leave a Reply to Sam Cancel Reply

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

Copyright © . Livefist Defence | Managed by Host My Blog