DRDO and PSU's

Azaad said:
This is assuming there'd be no modifications whatsoever on those drones to accomodate the indigenous engine or whatever alternative we choose which in turn results in further delays in what's an already interminably delayed program.
Click to expand...

while male UAV program is in delay, current archer NG design became public information only last year in aero india 23, and now there is talk of two prototypes being ready, this is lightening fast by Indian development standards. this is happening because of proven tech from rustom being used. if we were having this discussion five years back, we would have been discussing not having a desi male UAV satcom. in my view this is progress.

advantage of owning a design is that, design team can factor in both pathways from the start, in this case probably factor in for both engines from the start.

from my school of thought, which treats time as a linear and limited resource, and that a project management team has to be creative to mitigate known risks and tradeoffs in planning. this risk/tradeoff is with in my tolerance limit. for others it may not be, it's fine.

as far as end result is concerned, very high chance that the project team have made hundreds of such calls during course of the project so far. we are talking about engine because SM noticed it.
 
Azaad said:
The Russians are either fools or desperate for money or there's some great game afoot which I can't seem to figure out given the paucity of information at my end.
Click to expand...

I'd assume both sides think they have leverage on the other guy, the seller's leverage of supply and the buyer's leverage of purchase

In strange times the seller's leverage may be strong like today's Chad Sons of Heaven Factory of the World vs virgin, pale skinned, round eyed, barbarian buyers
 
ezsasa said:
while male UAV program is in delay, current archer NG design became public information only last year in aero india 23, and now there is talk of two prototypes being ready, this is lightening fast by Indian development standards. this is happening because of proven tech from rustom being used. if we were having this discussion five years back, we would have been discussing not having a desi male UAV satcom. in my view this is progress.
Click to expand...

The Rustom program itself has its roots in the Light Canard Research Aircraft ( LCRA) developed by Prof Rustom Damania of NAL & after whom the project was named way back in the late 1980s .

From there we've had its various manifestations from the Tapas , the Archer ( & SR UAV) to the Rustom II to what have you .

Which of these manifestations even has a prototype leave alone an anything else? They've all been TDs as old as the LCA program from which our entire defence aeronautical ecosystem flows.
ezsasa said:
advantage of owning a design is that, design team can factor in both pathways from the start, in this case probably factor in for both engines from the start.
Click to expand...

Well in that case they've had close to 4 decades to manifest what you're referring to or more than 2 decades if we leave aside the LCRA & focus only on the Rustom & its various derivatives which is precisely what they are , whatever they're named . Old wine in new bottle.
ezsasa said:
from my school of thought, which treats time as a linear and limited resource, and that a project management team has to be creative to mitigate known risks and tradeoffs in planning. this risk/tradeoff is with in my tolerance limit. for others it may not be, it's fine.
Click to expand...

Fine ! Now with the knowledge above how much time & leeway or to be precise , MORE time & leeway are you prepared to give the development team ?

ezsasa said:
as far as end result is concerned, very high chance that the project team have made hundreds of such calls during course of the project so far. we are talking about engine because SM noticed it.
Click to expand...
Once again I remind you this is the ADE we're talking about. Please do check their track record for the past 2 decades .
 
Azaad said:
The Rustom program itself has its roots in the Light Canard Research Aircraft ( LCRA) developed by Prof Rustom Damania of NAL & after whom the project was named way back in the late 1980s .

From there we've had its various manifestations from the Tapas , the Archer ( & SR UAV) to the Rustom II to what have you .

Which of these manifestations even has a prototype leave alone an anything else? They've all been TDs as old as the LCA program from which our entire defence aeronautical ecosystem flows.


Well in that case they've had close to 4 decades to manifest what you're referring to or more than 2 decades if we leave aside the LCRA & focus only on the Rustom & its various derivatives which is precisely what they are , whatever they're named . Old wine in new bottle.


Fine ! Now with the knowledge above how much time & leeway or to be precise , MORE time & leeway are you prepared to give the development team ?


Once again I remind you this is the ADE we're talking about. Please do check their track record for the past 2 decades .
Click to expand...
Small nitpick. Tapas and LCRA do not share design as in others you quoted.
 
Anants said:
Small nitpick. Tapas and LCRA do not share design as in others you quoted.
Click to expand...
Rustom is derived from the LCRA program & Tapas from Rustom H .


This isn't the first time I'm debating the efficacy & efficiency of ADE . Did a lot of head banging exercises on this issue on Strat Front with a few members there a few years ago .
 
Azaad said:
The Rustom program itself has its roots in the Light Canard Research Aircraft ( LCRA) developed by Prof Rustom Damania of NAL & after whom the project was named way back in the late 1980s .

From there we've had it's various manifestations from the Tapas , the Archer ( & SR UAV) to the Rustom II to what have you .
Click to expand...

it's not just about the main system.

most of story happens at the sub-system level. for this discussion's sake let's say there are 1000 major sub-systems. each sub-system will have elements of lessons learnt from past or parallel projects, these sub-systems would have gone thru it's design iterations, proven and certified along the way. out of these 1000, in these three decades may be 800 are good to go, and 200 are new and yet to be proven. when we say, some main system is certified, we are saying these 1000 sub-systems individually and together are being certified as a system. even this explanation is over-simplification of what might actually be happening.

in missiles too, for decades "concerned citizens" were giving a lot of "advice" to DRDO. not so much these days because DRDO has reached a stage where majority of sub-systems are proven tech, now reached a stage that they can cook up new configurations in short span of time.
Azaad said:
Fine ! Now with the knowledge above how much time & leeway or to be precise , MORE time & leeway are you prepared to give the development team ?
Click to expand...

it will depend on timeline they set for themselves. if we know for a fact that they set themselves a target of two more years, then maybe we can have some outsider's perspective on it. is there any public information on timeline they set for themselves?

as of now, even the first flight hasn't happened. even if everything goes well, it will take 7-8 years before production starts.
 
ezsasa said:
it's not just about the main system.

most of story happens at the sub-system level. for this discussion's sake let's say there are 1000 major sub-systems. each sub-system will have elements of lessons learnt from past or parallel projects, these sub-systems would have gone thru it's design iterations, proven and certified along the way. out of these 1000, in these three decades may be 800 are good to go, and 200 are new and yet to be proven. when we say, some main system is certified, we are saying these 1000 sub-systems individually and together are being certified as a system. even this explanation is over-simplification of what might actually be happening.

in missiles too, for decades "concerned citizens" were giving a lot of "advice" to DRDO. not so much these days because DRDO has reached a stage where majority of sub-systems are proven tech, now reached a stage that they can cook up new configurations in short span of time.


it will depend on timeline they set for themselves. if we know for a fact that they set themselves a target of two more years, then maybe we can have some outsider's perspective on it. is there any public information on timeline they set for themselves?

as of now, even the first flight hasn't happened. even if everything goes well, it will take 7-8 years before production starts.
Click to expand...

found this demo project plan from 94 for one european aero sub-system .

 
ezsasa said:
it's not just about the main system.

most of story happens at the sub-system level. for this discussion's sake let's say there are 1000 major sub-systems. each sub-system will have elements of lessons learnt from past or parallel projects, these sub-systems would have gone thru it's design iterations, proven and certified along the way. out of these 1000, in these three decades may be 800 are good to go, and 200 are new and yet to be proven. when we say, some main system is certified, we are saying these 1000 sub-systems individually and together are being certified as a system. even this explanation is over-simplification of what might actually be happening.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day all this has to result in something tangible & usable not another TD with a new name which is essentially more of the same.

ezsasa said:
in missiles too, for decades "concerned citizens" were giving a lot of "advice" to DRDO. not so much these days because DRDO has reached a stage where majority of sub-systems are proven tech, now reached a stage that they can cook up new configurations in short span of time.
Click to expand...

Yes & the missile program under the flagship - IGMDP produced results which resulted in a whole host of projects which too yielded results .

Ditto for radars & many other such sub systems viz the LCH is to be armed with an EW suite which by the looks of it is going to be sourced locally as opposed to the ones in the Rudra which is from a SAAB South Africa JV.

At the end of the day all these developments be it of sub components or sub assemblies has to result in something concrete . What exactly has the ADE have to show for the Rustom project ? You'd have to name their specific achievements if you're arguing in favour of either ADE or the Rustom project.

ezsasa said:
it will depend on timeline they set for themselves. if we know for a fact that they set themselves a target of two more years, then maybe we can have some outsider's perspective on it. is there any public information on timeline they set for themselves?

as of now, even the first flight hasn't happened. even if everything goes well, it will take 7-8 years before production starts.
Click to expand...
This is precisely the nub of the entire issue. They've already taken anywhere between 40 to 24+ years depending on your PoV & they've yet to deliver something concrete.

Just when we think ADE isn't capable of any more bad news comes news that the Archer is due for test flights followed by information that the engines powering them are of Chinese make .

I'd rather they would have begun trials with the indigenous engine since at the end of the day both need to be certified. Further this also raises the question what if the indigenous engine fails or falls short of performance expectations ?

We can't go back to the Chinese engine can we for there's no way these would find their way into production variants which brings me to back my original point - what's the point of testing it with a Chinese engine ?

And if you're adding 7-8 more years for production from date , please be informed that the entire project for some lousy MALE would've taken 31-32 years going by the low chronology here & it's still a big if .

This is precisely the problem with ADE. They started showing some success with the Nirbhay / ITCM program once Dr Tessy Thomas took over as DG - Aero DRDO incharge of a cluster of 6 labs including our favourite ADE apart from ADA , DARE , GTRE , CABS & CEMILAC & given the secrecy behind the entire project I won't be surprised in the least if development work would've been off loaded to sister labs other than what's required or once again personnel from other labs were deputed to ADE to bring the project to fruition just like the Ghatak project was alloted to ADE from ADA by transferring the entire project along with the entire team from ADA to ADE lock stock n barrel by the then DG DRDO Dr Christopher just to cover up for the failures of this particular lab .
 
If one looks closely at the launch video of ITCM. The name Nirbhay was written on the missiles and it was also using the same launcher as OG Nirbhay and now the LRLACM is also using the same launcher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

VPN-HSL-250-X250
Back
Top