Indian Armed Forces

[abc123]

What happend with K-100 Novator missile?

[Lord Jim]

Unless India stops its policy of "We want to build it here so give us all the technical data", policy it is going to find it harder and harder to purchase western aircraft and may have to revisit its plans to co-develop a version of the Russian 5th Gen Fighter. The whole "Made in India", drive has severely hampered the Indian Military's attempts to modernise.

[abc123]

Unless India stops its policy of "We want to build it here so give us all the technical data", policy it is going to find it harder and harder to purchase western aircraft and may have to revisit its plans to co-develop a version of the Russian 5th Gen Fighter. The whole "Made in India", drive has severely hampered the Indian Military's attempts to modernise.

Yes, but what's the alternative? Sooner or later they have to become self-reliant.

[Caribbean]

but what's the alternative?

India allegedly produces around 500,000 engineering "graduates" a year. Even when you remove the estimated 50% who aren't really fit to be hired and those who train, but never go into engineering, that's still a VERY large number, many of whom are very talented (by comparison the UK produces about 12000 batchelors graduates and c. 5000 higher degrees a yea)r. Maybe the Indian Government needs to think (and spend) along the lines of building it's own indigenous industry from the ground up, rather than indulging in somewhat dubious practices to "acquire" that data from other countries.

[Lord Jim]

They have been trying to become self reliant for decades. They have the engineers as has been pointed out but do not seem to be able to manage indigenous complex military programmes. Just look at the Light Combat Aircraft and the Main Battle Tank programmes. Despite the enormous amounts of time and resources allocated to these programmes they failed and India has had to go over seas to meet its needs. In its frustration it is now trying to tie in technology transfer at a level few countries will allow as a precondition to buying complex platforms. India will become self reliant but it will take time and have to be achieved in a methodical way, along the line of a naval ship building programmes.

[abc123]

They have been trying to become self reliant for decades. They have the engineers as has been pointed out but do not seem to be able to manage indigenous complex military programmes. Just look at the Light Combat Aircraft and the Main Battle Tank programmes. Despite the enormous amounts of time and resources allocated to these programmes they failed and India has had to go over seas to meet its needs. In its frustration it is now trying to tie in technology transfer at a level few countries will allow as a precondition to buying complex platforms. India will become self reliant but it will take time and have to be achieved in a methodical way, along the line of a naval ship building programmes.

Agreed. Look at China, I'm sure they have even more graduates, but still, good aircraft engine, good helicopter or nuclear submarine are something they can't build on their own- without generous foreign technical assistance or copyng foreign solutions.

[RetroSicotte]

Indian culture in the workplace really isn't suited to these types of projects. My father worked with companies over there many times, there's some very work ethic based changes need to be made for such types of engineering to function in any efficient manner.

They are getting better at it though. Just slowly.

[abc123]

Indian culture in the workplace really isn't suited to these types of projects. My father worked with companies over there many times, there's some very work ethic based changes need to be made for such types of engineering to function in any efficient manner.

They are getting better at it though. Just slowly.

Can you elaborate about that, please?

[RetroSicotte]

Can you elaborate about that, please?

The primary issue found was that while in the West the definement of success in a project is that the project works, functions as it needs to and is of good quality within budget. That's how we judge success with it, and the culture of western companies is that they will push hard to achieve this.

Amongst three companies (in relation to Nacco and Hyster) he found that isn't how it is judged in those workplaces. It's about the appearance of having done the job. There was very little initiative to do anything but the absolute bare minimum. Literal word is a thing to be very careful about. For example, upon being asked to test manufacture a regenerative braking system, he on visiting was rather perplexed to discover that they had indeed built a regenerative steering system that met only the VERY basic criteria to function for demonstration. When questioned about how this would ever survive in a finished product, he was assured that they would "do more" for the real thing. Budgets prevailed, and the Indians were kept in the loop.

Fast forward a year, the unit was found to indeed do more, but still barely above the functional minimum. It was not engineering difficulties that caused this, for they had been provided with everything they needed. The problem, upon audit, was found to be a culture of "we did what was asked, it works", and then a mass of falsified reports and paperwork to make up the appearance that it was doing a lot more than it actually could. It was all about appearance, they would dress up a turd and proclaim it a diamond, and spend more time acquiring legal paperwork to try and declare it is one.

I've since gone into a business too in which we work with an Indian subcontractor and found much the same. No willingness to push past the bottom line of need, and only getting things done to a good quality with severe oversight.

The other issue being that getting companies in India to work together is a complete nightmare. If you thought corporate warfare in the west was bad, good grief.

Considering the bleeding edge precision, skill and attention to detail an arms industry requires, and how modern level equipment necessitates multiple contractors working as one, it's no wonder they have such sluggish process in this. There's very little will in the workforce culture to really get proud of their own work, it's only upper marketing creating the assurance of so.

Thats my father's, and my, experiences with them, amongst others in the line of work. I am led to believe this is not an uncommon thing.

[abc123]

Can you elaborate about that, please?

The primary issue found was that while in the West the definement of success in a project is that the project works, functions as it needs to and is of good quality within budget. That's how we judge success with it, and the culture of western companies is that they will push hard to achieve this.

Amongst three companies (in relation to Nacco and Hyster) he found that isn't how it is judged in those workplaces. It's about the appearance of having done the job. There was very little initiative to do anything but the absolute bare minimum. Literal word is a thing to be very careful about. For example, upon being asked to test manufacture a regenerative braking system, he on visiting was rather perplexed to discover that they had indeed built a regenerative steering system that met only the VERY basic criteria to function for demonstration. When questioned about how this would ever survive in a finished product, he was assured that they would "do more" for the real thing. Budgets prevailed, and the Indians were kept in the loop.

Fast forward a year, the unit was found to indeed do more, but still barely above the functional minimum. It was not engineering difficulties that caused this, for they had been provided with everything they needed. The problem, upon audit, was found to be a culture of "we did what was asked, it works", and then a mass of falsified reports and paperwork to make up the appearance that it was doing a lot more than it actually could. It was all about appearance, they would dress up a turd and proclaim it a diamond, and spend more time acquiring legal paperwork to try and declare it is one.

I've since gone into a business too in which we work with an Indian subcontractor and found much the same. No willingness to push past the bottom line of need, and only getting things done to a good quality with severe oversight.

The other issue being that getting companies in India to work together is a complete nightmare. If you thought corporate warfare in the west was bad, good grief.

Considering the bleeding edge precision, skill and attention to detail an arms industry requires, and how modern level equipment necessitates multiple contractors working as one, it's no wonder they have such sluggish process in this. There's very little will in the workforce culture to really get proud of their own work, it's only upper marketing creating the assurance of so.

Thats my father's, and my, experiences with them, amongst others in the line of work. I am led to believe this is not an uncommon thing.

Interesting, thanks. Do you know reasons for that?

[RetroSicotte]

Interesting, thanks. Do you know reasons for that?

While there is undoubtedly a cultural aspect to it (ensuring you appear fine/acting more than you are to look better than others is not limited to business only), I would be hesitant to lay it all at the feet of the people of India themselves. We enjoy plenty of workplace security, trust, benefits and pay over here (even if sometimes it doesn't feel like it).

Over there, their workers get paid jack, very few benefits, and there is little law protecting them as there is here. Hard to push hard for a job well done when said job doesn't respect you in the slightest. In some ways I don't blame them at the worker level.

Lot of reform needed if they want to perform on a global defence industry for things like tanks and combat jets. Pretty much why France was very rightfully denying accepting responsibility for Indian workers. Who wants to see a Rafale made by people who don't care? Worse, who wants to accept their work as your responsibility?

[SKB]

[Simon82]

The moustaches are impressive, I’ll give them that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The moustaches are impressive, I’ll give them that.

Our best team, the RAF with "proper" handle bars, had to drop out of the competition; had to be shaved off due to the weight issues with the new helmet for the F-35s... the third go at the helmet will resolve the issue, but a tradition forever lost, in the process

[Moti0101]

Hopefully it will be commissioned in 2020

[abc123]

A Goliath-crane fell on new Indian Navy frigate on construction

http://warisboring.com/a-giant-crane-fe ... alth-ship/

[RetroSicotte]

https://defenceaviationpost.com/collaps ... s-program/

Pictures look nasty.

[SKB]

Sources said the accident happened on 17 April 2018 but was kept under the wraps by the management.

[abc123]

Sources said the accident happened on 17 April 2018 but was kept under the wraps by the management.

[2HeadsBetter]

Quite a sales pitch:

[SKB]

I'm guessing India won't be joining Team Tempest in the near future then?!

[Little J]

Who on earth would be daft enough to ask India to join them on any project (defence or other)?

[SKB]

Who on earth would be daft enough to ask India to join them on any project (defence or other)?

[ArmChairCivvy]

An update to some earlier posts on this thread
http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-indias- ... &r=US&IR=T

[ArmChairCivvy]

Quite a sales pitch:

Delivery in 2019 comes in "the last moment" against the fighter numbers crisis (flopped domestic LCA and truncated Rafale deal)
" the need to quickly reach the strength of 42 combat squadrons from this near all-time low of 33. The 15 years transform roughly to 2032 when, if all goes well, the IAF will have its authorised strength. A closer analysis will show that it will be possible only if all dreams come true and all plans move on centre-line. The ground reality is that the IAF is in a crisis situation on this count.



Read more at:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... in-crisis/

The above article also gives details about the state of the "backbone" fleet until now:
"The IAF’s current aircraft include five squadrons of older MiG-21 (Bis and Type 96) variants that may have to stretch till 2019. The five squadrons of MiG 21 Bison fleet will continue till 2025 with depleting numbers and lower availability of spares"