Delhi's deeply frozen Israeli Missiles: Windfall profits for Delhi politicians but no Baraks

Posted on 29 March 2009. Tags: Indian corruption, Israeli Barak missile

Ostensibly Bharat is self sufficient in arms production. However that self sufficiency is a paper exercise created for the consumption of the rural population too worried about food. This farce of “indigenous production” has been manufactured for the urban population brainwashed by a temple education and overwhelmed by a triumphalist media that has no relation to reality. While millions starve Billions are spent on arms that do not work.

Admiral L Ramdas, a former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, told Inter Press Service. “The Indian armed services’ experience with DRDO-made armaments has not been a happy one. Their reliability is often extremely poor. We often used to joke that one had to pray they would somehow work in the battlefield.”

The agency has a budget of Rs30 billion (US$670 million), which is of the same order as the annual expenditure of the Department of Atomic Energy which is responsible for India’s civilian and military nuclear programs. India exposed by missile failure By Praful Bidwai

The Mail Today newspaper on Wednesday quoted the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as announcing that it would scrap its 25-year Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) by the end of this year.

Plagued by cost overruns and repeated failures, the announcement is a virtual admission of failure,” the newspaper said.“In fact, some former chiefs of the different services said as much on hearing the news.” May 7th, 2008

NEW DELHI: The government has put in cold storage a massive joint venture for a new generation Barak missiles for Indian Air Force, as the CBI makes major breakthroughs in nailing arms agent Suresh Nanda and others in the original Barak contract for Indian Navy in 2000.

According to dependable sources, a new version of the Barak missiles, a medium range surface-to-air missiles, was to be made for the IAF under the Rs 10,000 crore project in a joint venture between the Defence Research and Development Organisation and the Israel Aerospace Industries, the makers of Barak missiles.

The Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared the JV on July 12, 2007, but sources have now indicated that the government is cautious about giving the final administrative clearance for this project. If cleared, this would be the biggest military JV of India with any other country… DNA India

The Bharati Missiles have failed to deploy and their original designs were all scrapped. This is not the analysis of any defense expert–this is the verdict of the Admirals and Generals of the Indian Armed Forces.

Faced with the failure of its Trishul project, India had been in negotiations with the US, Israel and Russia for procurement of an alternative anti-missile defence system. PTI | November 27, 2006 | 11:53 IST. Rediff

Islamabad, July 10 (IANS) The failure of Agni-III reflected ‘incompetence’ of the Indian missile designers and planners, said an eminent Pakistani scientist. Agni Missile designers are incompetent: Pakistan scientist Daily India ^ | 7/9/06 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 7:20:03 AM by maxypane

The incompetence of the Indian military is written in stone. The Agni, Trishul and the Nag pay testimony to this inadequacy.

The Barak Missile Scandal is a case of defence corruption relating to the purchase of Barak Missile Systems by India from Israel. The case is currently under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and several people including the Samata Party ex-treasurer R.K. Jain have been arrested. Others named in the First Information Report include politicians George Fernandes and Jaya Jaitley, and arms dealer and ex-naval officer Suresh Nanda, who is the son of retired chief of naval staff S.M. Nanda.

The Barak missile system (jointly developed by Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and RAFAEL Armament Development Authority of Israel) employs vertically launched missiles to counter anti-ship sea-skimming missiles and attacks by aircraft. On October 23, 2000, contracts had been signed by the Indian government to procure seven Barak systems at a total cost $199.50 million and 200 missiles at a cost of $69.13 million. This was done despite objections raised by several groups, including members of the team that had originally visited Israel to observe the missile performance, and APJ Abdul Kalam, then heading the Defence Research Development Organization. Though some of the objections are of a procedural nature, the Navy Chief of Staff Sushil Kumar is currently under investigation as to why these objections were not considered. V. Venkatesan (2006-11-03). “Dubious deal”. Frontline (magazine). http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2321/stories/20061103001804100.htm.Wiki

All Indian programs begin with a big hoopla and lots of pomp and cermony. Most programs end up as failures. First the Army makes millions, then hands over the nuggets to the foreign multinationals (The East India Companies). To hide the maladroitness, the Indian Army usually begins involving the civilians so that part of the kickbacks can be shared with the corrupt leaders who are really eager to purchase arms from abroad.

In 2001 a sting operation conducted by Tehelka, alleged that 15 defence deals made by the government had involved some sort of kickback and the Barak deal was one of them. The following excerpts from the Tehelka interview of Samata Party treasurer provides a good description of the Missile system, how it was opposed, and how the bribes worked. The Defence Minister at the time, George Fernandes, was from the Samata Party.

R.K. JAIN: Our help at times is a very big help. Like Barak was the case. Barak, you know is a system which is set on the ships, for Naval ships. And it is air-to-air…surface-to-surface missile. The file was going on for purchase of seven Barak, plus the ammunition from a company called Rafael in Israel. Abdul Kalam…the file went twice. I told you…DRDO, the head of the research and development wing is the scientific advisor to the defence, Abdul Kalam. Nowadays Atre is there. Abdul Kalam has retired. So, he wrote on the file that, “Look, we are developing our Prithvi or Trishul. Trishul missiles. I think, according to my…according to me, the Prithvi should be…or Trishul should be set up on our naval ships. There is no point of buying this imported system Barak.”

TEHELKA: That is not missile. That is a system.Wiki

R.K. JAIN: Again, I just do my job. How do I do? The scientific advisor is also on the above of George Fernandes now. He (Suresh Nanda of Crown Corporation) gave me one crore rupees. “You keep it with you. Whether this order is being done or not done, I don’t care. But I want to give it to the party. You give it and please try and help me. Money is not a problem.” I went and paid…. I told Jaya Jaitley, “Look, so much of money he has already given to me now. If you accept it, that means we have to do something for the party. If you don’t accept it, well, I’ll go and give it back. But only accept it when we feel that we can do something. Otherwise, he won’t say anything to me, but he won’t feel good. He won’t feel nice.” She said, “Give me time for two days.” She kept the money. After two days, she says, “I’ve spoken to the boss. Don’t worry. He said he’ll make everything fine.”[Tehelka Tapes (transcript)". Tehelka.com]

A classic example of this was the Barak missile. After the army failed to produce any credible missile that could fly, it decided to purchase the missile from Israel. A tricolor would then be painted on the Barak along with a Bharati decal with a name out of the scriptures.

In January 2007, after several months of intense negotiations, India and Israel signed a US$330 million deal to co-develop an all new generation of the Barak SAM, which was to be known as the Barak II. It has also been called Barak-8.Wiki

The Israelis are also investigating the failure of the Barak Missile which failed to intercept a rudimentary Hamas rocket.

“Senior naval officers admitted at the time that they were taken by surprise, claiming that they did not know Hezbollah possessed such advanced capabilities and had as a result deactivated the Barak missile defense system on the ship which was capable of intercepting and destroying the missile,” the Jerusalem Post said.

“The INS Hanit is Israel’s most advanced missile ship and boasts an array of Harpoon and Barak anti-missile missiles, along with a system for electronically jamming incoming missiles and other threats,” the newspaper said. Space Wars

Marxist India exposes the Indian game of corruption with reference to the Barak Missile purchase.

marxistindia, news from the cpi(m), March 28, 2009, Press Statement
The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has issued
the following statement:

Investigate the Israeli Missile Contract
The Rs. 10,000 crore missile production deal with an Israeli company,
the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), has now been exposed as a deal
involving massive kickbacks besides being an unnecessary contract. The
Left parties had asked in a letter to the Prime Minister in March 2008
that the $ 2.5 billion deal for developing a medium range surface to air
missile with the IAI should not be proceeded with in view of the fact
that the earlier Barak missile deal with the same company is being
investigated by the CBI for kickbacks. The Defence Minister replied to
this letter that if there is any impropriety or violation of law, action
would be taken (letters attached).

An investigative report by the DNA newspaper has exposed the fact that
the Israeli missile deal involves a “business charge” which is six
percent of the total value (approximately Rs. 600 crore). This makes it a
scam of ten-fold magnitude compared to the Bofors Rs. 64 crore
kickbacks.

The Left parties had written to the Prime Minister again in February
2009 barely three weeks before the contract was signed once again urging the government not to proceed with the deal (letter attached). The
reason cited was that the DRDO had already developed a missile system
which was superior to the one being offered by the IAI for
co-production. The letter also reiterated that IAI should have been
blacklisted just like the South African firm Denel which is also under
investigation for kickbacks .

Given the seriousness of the charges the government has to answer the
following questions:

1. The IAI had got the contract for the supply of Barak missile in 2000
during the NDA regime. The FIR lodged by the CBI in October 2006 names
IAI as an accused besides naming the Delhi-based arms dealer, Suresh
Nanda and other family members as agents of the Israeli firms IAI and
Rafael Corporation. Why was the IAI not embargoed from further supplies
till the case was disposed off?

2. Was the Government not aware that the Israeli authorities had
investigated the IAI for malpractices in contracts with other countries?
Such charges led to the head of the IAI stepping down in 2005.

3. Was the Ministry of Defence not aware that an Indian agent of the
Israeli company replaced by another petitioned the Israeli defence
ministry claiming additional commissions were due to him?

4. What does the Manmohan Singh government have to say about the DRDO
having developed and field proven its Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile
capacity? Why was the DRDO compelled to enter into the so-called “joint
development” of the IAI air defence missile when it already has its own
superior AAD missile?

5. Was the Manmohan Singh government not aware of the fact that like in
the Barak missile deal, there are middlemen and intermediaries involved
who are being paid commissions/kickbacks? Was the government not aware
of identity of these agents?

6. How does the Manmohan Singh government explain the six per cent
“business charges” on the total value of the deal? Is this not
contrary to the stipulations against engagement of agents and payment of agency commissions?

7. Why is it that the contract was signed on February 27, 2009 and the
fact was kept a secret? The information about the date of signing has
now become known from the IAI which has claimed that the Indian
government wanted the signing of the contract to be kept secret.

8. Why did the government get the contract signed on February 27, 2009,
just two days before the announcement of the Lok Sabha elections?
The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) demands that the missile contract with
the IAI be suspended and an investigation be ordered by the CBI into the
contract with the IAI which should be a follow up of the investigations
into the earlier Barak missile deal.

End of Statement

Annexures

Annexure1

March 17, 2008

Dr. Manmohan Singh

Prime Minister

Government of India
Dear Shri Manmohan Singhji,

We have been noting with growing concern the manner in which arms deals with Israel are being conducted. Israel is already the second largest supplier to India. It is now clear that Israeli arms manufacturers, including government-owned entities, have been blatantly violating Indian laws by using middle-men and by giving kickbacks to officials involved in the decision-making process.

The scam surrounding India’s acquisition of the Israeli Barak missile
systems manufactured by the state-owned Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Rafael corporations is the latest case in point. The original deal for ship-mounted Barak systems worth about Rs.1300 crore struck in 2000 during the NDA regime was rife with procedural violations and outright corruption as emerged during the Tehelka expose. CBI’s FIR of October 2006 names IAI as an accused, besides naming Delhi-based arms dealer Suresh Nanda and other family members as agents of the Israeli firms.

The recent CBI raids and consequent arrests of the Nandas and their
associates seem to have added more hard evidence.

Evidence has also emerged in Israel of the bribery and corruption,
including payments to agents in India, indulged in by IAI and Rafael. An
Indian agent replaced by another petitioned the Israeli Defence Ministry claiming additional commissions due to him, and the matter has even been referred to the Israeli Attorney General. All this has led to the arrest and impending prosecution of Moshe Keretz, who headed IAI for 20 years till 2005, and another agent whose name has been concealed under a gag order of the Israeli authorities.

A. B. Bardhan

Genera

Regrettably, despite all this evidence, the UPA government has shown a remarkable reluctance to take action against IAI, Rafael and other
Israeli arms companies. The Swedish firm Bofors was blacklisted after
the involvement of middle-men was proved in the notorious deal. The
South African firm Denel was similarly blacklisted in 2005 for resorting
to agents and kickbacks. But demands that similar action be initiated
against IAI and other Israeli firms have been ignored. Some high
authorities have bent over backwards to argue that the cases were not similar in some unexplained manner.

To add insult to injury, the UPA government has further cemented the
alliance with IAI by signing a massive $2.5 billion (Rs.10,000 crore)
deal for co-development of more advanced Barak NG (new generation) and Barak-8 missiles with longer range and for land-based anti-missile
applications. How can India proceed with this deal in the face of
evident wrong-doing by Israeli firms?

By turning a blind eye to systematic violation of Indian laws by Israeli
firms, India is sending out wrong signals to international arms
manufacturers at a time when India is embarking on huge overseas
military acquisitions, with the potential to corrupt and derail the
entire system. These developments also underline the importance of
self-reliance in defence production which has been given low priority of
late.

The Left parties urge the UPA Government to immediately take strong
action against the errant Israeli firms, and also ensure that the CBI
pursues the Barak scam case to its logical conclusion and brings all the
guilty to book.

Sd/-
Prakash Karat, General Secretary, CPI(M)
A. B. Bardhan, Secretary, CPI
Debabrata Biswas, General Secreatary, AIFB
T. J. Chandrachoodan, General Secretary, RSP
end of annexure I

Annexure II is letter from Shri A.K. Antony (soft copy not available)
Annexure 3

February 9, 2009

Shri Manmohan Singh

Prime Minister

Government of India

New Delhi

Dear Shri Manmohan Singhji,

We are writing to you regarding the contract for Air Defence Missile
Systems placed by the MoD on Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). The
amount involved is around Rs. 10,000 crore for the supply of around 12
such systems. This is surprising considering that such a contract has
been given when IAI is already under investigation of the CBI on charges
of bribery and corruption for the anti-ship, ship-mounted Barak missile
system. We had brought this to your notice in our earlier letter dated
March 18, 2008 about the kickbacks and use of middleman in the Barak
deal, which are in violation of Indian laws. In the past India has
blacklisted firms such as Bofors, Sweden and Denel, South Africa for
similar cases of kickbacks and middleman.

The deal with IAI is also surprising on other counts. First, it involves
systems that have yet to be even developed by IAI, let alone
manufactured and test proven. Secondly, our Defense R & D Organisation (DRDO) has already developedand repeatedly field proven DRDO’s Advanced Air Defense (AAD) missiles capacity. This missile is capable of destroying incomingenemy missiles as well as aircraft whereas aircraft the proposedIAI missile can deal only with enemyaircraft. The DRDO (AAD) missile is capable of intercepting even ballisticmissiles at altitudes upto as high as 18 km. Thus the proposed missiles sought to be developed by IAI appears to be inferior to the DRDO developed missiles AAD on the counts of technical, cost and operational readiness.

Thirdly, to give a “cover” of indigenous involvement and content, DRDO
has been forcedto enter into a so-called “joint development” of the IAI
Air Defense Missile even when it already has its own superior AAD
missile!

This deal again brings out the unfortunate influence that Israeli arms
manufacturers including Government owned entities assert on India’s arms purchases. Nothing else can explain why IAI, which is seriously
implicated in corruption in India and in Israel, should be favoured in
this way.

We urge you to get the contract stopped and see that the DRDO’s
indigenous missile programme is not subverted in this way.
Yours sincerely
Sd/-

(Prakash Karat), General Secretary, CPI(M)
(A. B. Bardhan), General Secretary, CPI
Copy to: Shri A. K. Antony, Minister for Defence, Govt. of India

_______________________________________________
Marxistindia mailing list
Marxistindia@cpim.org

http://cpim.org/mailman/listinfo/marxistindia_cpim.org

http://wwww.cpim.org

Prithvi: Failure: To date the only reliable delivery system inducted is the Pirthvi missile with a range of 300 kilometres. The subsequent versions of this missile are still undergoing tests. The pride of India the Agni missile tested last time landed 200 kilometres off target.

Akash: Failure: After several years of testing has been shelved for reasons best known to the Indians. Akash was meant as a substitute for Pechora. On the Akash missile, which was the subject of the DRDO media conference here on Tuesday, former air chief S. P. Tyagi said:“Akash was to be ready at a certain time, but it wasn’t. I had to change everything to make up for the delay.” Both missiles were part of a programme to develop indigenous weapons, which began in July 1983, with plans for Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag missiles.

Trishul: Failure: Trishul is being replaced by Israeli Barak and Russian systems.

The IAF, for instance, has aging Pechora, Igla-1M and OSA-AK missile systems, and that, too, in woefully inadequate numbers.

While Trishul was to replace its OSA-AK weapons system, Akash was meant as a substitute for Pechora.

But both the Trishul and Akash air defence missile systems, which are part of the original Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme launched as far back as 1983, have been dogged by development snags in their “command guidance and integrated Ramjet rocket propulsion” systems.

Trishul, for instance, has been tested over 80 times so far without coming anywhere near becoming operational. It was, in fact, virtually given up for dead in 2003 after around Rs 300 crore was spent on it, before being revived yet again.

Trishul’s repeated failure, in fact, forced the Navy to go in for nine Israeli Barak anti-missile defence systems for its frontline warships, along with 200 Barak missiles, at a cost of Rs 1,510 crore during the 1999 Kargil conflict. The Navy is now inducting even more Barak systems due to Trishul’s continued failure.

Speaking of the Trishul surface-to-air missile that has now been termed a technology demonstrator, former naval chief Sushil Kumar said:“It was a national embarrassment. DRDO made fake claims for 25 years. In the 1999 Kargil conflict, the navy was vulnerable to attacks from Pakistan’s Harpoon.

“Finally the project was scrapped when the navy went in for the Israeli Barak missiles. The Prithvi’s naval variant, Dhanush, is also flawed and ill-conceived, which is being inflicted on the navy.”Indian missile system started back in the 50s on a five folder programme namely:

Nag: Failure: The Nag proved to be as deadily as the Holy Cow.

Agni: Failure: The Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.

The Agni-III’s brand new design, in which both stages use solid propellants, was to enable it to carry a payload weighing up to 1.5 tons and deliver it to targets as far away as Beijing and Shanghai. At present, India lacks an effective nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis China, based on a delivery vehicle carrying a nuclear warhead. Agni-III was meant to fill the void.

The failure of the Agni III was in some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability which is truly independent of the US’s strategic calculations.

The surface-to-surface ballistic missile, designed to have a range of 3,500 kilometers, took off in a “fairly smooth” manner at the designated hour. But “a series of mishaps” occurred in its later flight path.

The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, the test was postponed owing to technological snags. After their rectification, said reports, the missile’s test flights were put off twice largely for “political reasons”, so as not to annoy the US.

Earlier this year, India decided to postpone the missile test out of fear that a test could hamper US Congressional ratification of the India-US nuclear cooperation deal. Publicly, the Indian defense minister cited “self-imposed restraint” to justify the postponement.

The Indian missile met a disaster as it could not attain the altitude where the first stage is over or the second is even ignited.

He disputed the Indian claim, saying that with the range of 3,500 km, the missile had to go above about 800-900 km while the second stage had to be ignited at 28 to 30 km.

‘If the missile fell from the height of 12 km, it establishes that either it’s motor rocket, the basics of the missile proved failure or the guidance and control system was faulty. In both the probabilities, Indian technology has been exposed in clumsy manners.’

‘It is interesting to watch that Indian missile programme that was initiated by French and US assistance and later New Delhi also borrowed Russian technical support has been facing tragedies from the beginning,’ the newspaper quoted him as saying.

APPENDIX A

India exposed by missile failure By Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI – The failure in rapid succession this week of a satellite launcher and a new ballistic missile have shown up the technological and budgetary difficulties faced by India’s space establishment – civilian and military.

Hours after the US$50 million geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) with a communications satellite on board was ordered to self-destruct – as it veered off course soon after liftoff on Monday – authorities at the civilian Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) said one of its four strap-on rocket motors had failed.

Like the GSLV, a new intermediate-range ballistic missile “Agni III” that was launched by the secretive Defense Research Development Organization (DRDO) failed soon after liftoff on

Sunday and crashed into the Bay of Bengal, less than 1,000 kilometers away from the launch site.

The failure of the Agni III was in some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability which is truly independent of the US’s strategic calculations.

The surface-to-surface ballistic missile, designed to have a range of 3,500 kilometers, took off in a “fairly smooth” manner at the designated hour. But “a series of mishaps” occurred in its later flight path.

The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, the test was postponed owing to technological snags. After their rectification, said reports, the missile’s test flights were put off twice largely for “political reasons”, so as not to annoy the US.

Earlier this year, India decided to postpone the missile test out of fear that a test could hamper US Congressional ratification of the India-US nuclear cooperation deal. Publicly, the Indian defense minister cited “self-imposed restraint” to justify the postponement.

However, last month, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military, visited India and declared that “I do not see it [a test] as destabilizing” or upsetting the regional “military balance” since “other countries in this region” (read, Pakistan) have also tested missiles.

Following this “facilitation” or clearance, and after indications of favorable votes in US Congressional committees on the nuclear deal, India’s stand changed. A week later, the DRDO announced it was ready to launch Agni-III.

This is the ninth missile in the Agni series (named after the Sanskrit word for “fire”) to have been tested. The first was tested in May 1989. The last test (Agni-II) took place in August 2004.

Unlike major powers like the US, Russia or China, which test the same missile 10 to 20 times before announcing that it is fully developed, India considers only three or four test flights to be enough for both producing and inducting new missiles.

This is not the first time that the test of an Agni series missile has failed. In the past, some tests of the shorter range Agni-II (range 2,000 kilometers-plus) also proved unsuccessful.

But what makes the Agni-III’s failure significant is that unlike its shorter-range predecessors, it was a wholly new design, developed with the specific purpose of delivering a nuclear warhead.

The Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.

The Agni-III’s brand new design, in which both stages use solid propellants, was to enable it to carry a payload weighing up to 1.5 tons and deliver it to targets as far away as Beijing and Shanghai. At present, India lacks an effective nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis China, based on a delivery vehicle carrying a nuclear warhead. Agni-III was meant to fill the void.

The causes of the failure of the test flight are not clear. Scientists at the DRDO, which designed and built the missile, have been quoted as saying that many new technologies were tried in the Agni-III, including rocket motors, “fault-tolerant” avionics and launch control and guidance systems. Some of these could have failed. Other reports attribute the mishap to problems with the propellant.

“The DRDO isn’t the world’s most reliable weapons R&D agency,” Admiral L Ramdas, a former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, told Inter Press Service. “The Indian armed services’ experience with DRDO-made armaments has not been a happy one. Their reliability is often extremely poor. We often used to joke that one had to pray they would somehow work in the battlefield.”

“This figure is extremely high for a poor country like India, with a low rank of 127 among 175 countries of the world in the United Nations Human Development Index,” said Anil Chowdhary of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. “Yet the DRDO has delivered very little.”

None of the three major projects assigned to the DRDO has been completed on time or without huge cost-overruns. These include the development of a Main Battle Tank (MBT), a nuclear power plant for a submarine, and an advanced Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), all involving expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The MBT project was launched in 1974. But the tank has failed to meet service requirement tests. It is reportedly too heavy and undependable to be used in combat operations. The Indian Army prefers imported Russian tanks over the indigenous MBTs and says it will use the MBTs for training, not operations.

The nuclear submarine project, launched 31 years ago, is not yet finished despite the almost $1 billion spent on it. The LCA project, launched in 1983, is still in the doldrums: the DRDO has failed to develop the right engine for it. Even with an imported engine, the plane is unlikely to enter service anytime soon.

“The primary reason for these shocking instances of underperformance and inability is lack of public accountability and oversight of the DRDO,” says M V Ramana, an independent technical expert attached to the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

“The DRDO, like all of India’s defense and nuclear service establishments, is not subject to normal processes of audit. It has used ’security’ as a smokescreen or shield and refused to be held to account,” he adds.

The DRDO says it will try to rectify the faults in Agni-III. Whether or not and whenever that happens, India’s missile development program, with future plans to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 5,000 kilometers or more, has suffered a major setback. (Inter Press Service)

Crescent daggers
Pakistan’s “214 Subs” made in Karachi