‘Cyber’ and ‘electromagnetic’, the two new domains of warfare, require specific focus. Added to this is the need to provide wherewithal at the cuttingedge to fight sub conventional.

During the Defence Technology Seminar this August, a DRDO stalwart took umbrage to someone highlighting the ‘indigenous’ LCA produced after decades had 40 per cent imported parts including engine and every DRDO project suffered prolonged delays resulting in manifold costs. He retorted there was no need to develop every nut and bolt, not clarifying whether he considered engine of a fighter aircraft a ‘nut’ or ‘bolt’. He read out a communication by the erstwhile foreign secretary stating all R&D projects on average have 80 per cent time and cost overruns. The communication obviously referred to DRDO norms, not global.

In Japan, where defence industry is privatised, it takes 5-10 years to develop and field a major weapon system. We took 15 years to produce the INSAS Rifle (after importing 17 assault rifles from 11 countries), which is not the best; faults of which are still being rectified. The Chairman of the session, also from DRDO, sweetened discomfort by saying DRDO had received demands for two more ‘Akash’ systems. The audience didn’t know that Akash was to replace the ageing mobile air defence system supporting fast moving mechanised manoeuvres but prototypes produced after excruciating delays failed miserably in mobility and target acquisition during trials and were rejected outright by Army. Because of enormous investments it was eventually ‘given’ to Air Force for area protection in static role as part of layered system of air defence.

Despite periodic statements to gear up DRDO, accountability remains at premium. Annual South Block meetings reviewing DRDO projects have the same story – time and cost overruns plus quality. UAV Nishant (sanctioned October 1991) with contracted completion by April 1995 (42 months) suffered numerous revisions, failed/crashed flights, riddled with problems of unstable video imagery, poor picture quality, inaccurate target acquisition, weak payload stabilisation and poor recovery system, all adding to inordinate delays till media reported a ‘successful’ flight in recent months (over 234 months since October 1991). Final production can be anyone’s guess. Nishant has a life of 20 flights so training will remain problematic.

Army is without carbine training ammunition for years now because DRDO has failed to provide a replacement for the 9mm carbine. How do you train people authorised carbines? The 5.56 LMG of DRDO is a fiasco. Indigenous bullet proof jackets are poor quality and in inadequate quantity. Indigenous night vision devices (IR tubes still imported) are bulkier, crude and less effective compared to imports but see the DRDO fanfare for developing mosquito repellent and wasting lakhs on newspaper advertisement of the “great breakthrough” in developing skin ointment for Leucoderma. ‘Cyber’ and ‘electromagnetic’, the two new domains of warfare, require specific focus. Added to this is the need to provide wherewithal at the cuttingedge to fight sub conventional.

A senior DRDO official recently expressed views that directed energy weapons were being thought of abroad but not tried out, disclosing ignorance as UAVs have already been successfully shot down through land, air, sea-based laser systems, manpack laser version and plasma weapons developed. DRDO should also learn tricks from China who reverse engineered a dud US cruise missile in 1998, is apparently engaged with the MH-60 Black Hawk that crashed at Abbottabad and hope Pakistan will get the latest US drone that crashed in North Waziristan. Future forms of combat will include cyber space combat, radiation combat, robotic combat, nano technology combat, etc. DRDO has to go far beyond the laser dazzler for riot control and the Aditya (technology demonstrator) that may yet take a few years. We desperately need to upgrade capacity for self-reliance in defence production. It is a matter of survival for us.

The views expressed herein are the personal views of the author.