Analysis Why Govt Shifted UCAV Development Program from ADA to ADE: Potential for Morale Decline and Inter-Agency Disputes

UCAV.webp


The recent decision to transfer the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) program from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) has sparked controversy and raised concerns within India's defence and aerospace sectors.

This shift has not only disrupted the collaborative dynamic between these two key organizations but also raised questions about its potential impact on morale and inter-agency cooperation.

To understand the implications of this move, it's crucial to recognize the distinct roles of ADA and ADE. ADA, renowned for its work on the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, is the primary agency responsible for developing advanced fighter aircraft and systems for the Indian Air Force (IAF). Its mandate focuses on the design, development, and validation of next-generation aviation technologies.

ADE, on the other hand, operates under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and specializes in unmanned aerial systems (UAS), including UAVs and UCAVs. ADE has been instrumental in developing various unmanned systems for the Indian defence sector, such as the Nishant and Rustom series of drones.

Historically, ADA and ADE have worked collaboratively to advance India's aerospace capabilities. However, the recent transfer of the UCAV program has introduced tension into this relationship.

The decision to shift the UCAV program from ADA to ADE represents a significant departure from this collaborative approach. Initially, the UCAV project, crucial for enhancing India's aerial warfare capabilities, was under ADA's purview, aligning with their expertise in both manned and unmanned aircraft systems. However, the government's decision to transfer the program to ADE has raised concerns and fueled speculation about the underlying motivations.

Several factors may have contributed to this shift. ADE's specialization in unmanned systems and the growing importance of drones in modern warfare likely played a role. However, the decision has also raised concerns about potential morale decline within ADA and the possibility of inter-agency disputes.

ADA officials have expressed concerns about being sidelined in a project that aligns with their expertise. This has led to anxieties about ADA's future role in developing cutting-edge aviation technologies and its ability to contribute to projects involving both manned and unmanned systems.

While the shift presents an opportunity for ADE to showcase its capabilities, it also brings challenges. Developing a sophisticated combat drone is a complex undertaking, and ADE will need to ensure it has the necessary resources and expertise to deliver a successful UCAV.

The transfer of the UCAV program highlights the complexities of managing inter-agency relationships and the importance of clear communication and collaboration within India's defence establishment. It remains to be seen how this shift will ultimately impact the development of the UCAV and the broader collaborative dynamic between ADA and ADE.
 
The Nishant drone, eh? A pretty bad starter, considering we lost all six of the drones in accidents. As for the Rustom, well, the induction of that drone is so delayed by this point that it will start rivaling the HJT-36 in a few years.

That said, ADE has had some successes. The Lakshya target drones, Tapas, and potentially the Archer all come to mind.

Regardless, the ADA should focus on their share of work rather than stoke up tensions for no reason. UAVs and UCAVs are not part of their work, and they already have more than enough on their plate in form of the Tejas Mk 2, AMCA, and TEDBF.
 
UCAV is a joint project of ADE DRDO and ADA.Organisations like NAL HAL and private companies will also participate.
All can work together.
ADA can be given a naval version of UCAV to manage and develop.ADA can definitely do it with its experience.
 
Combine ADA with ADE ..pool resources.. get rid of excess admin staff. get more facilities, set targets. Get it done
 
So ADE made the failed Rustom and Nishant, please don't give them such an important project; they will do the same with it.
 
Rustom got bad publicity thats all. It's performance is on par with isreali hermes900 drone. Anyways, going forward when next generation fighter development is taken up, both will need to work closely as manned and unmanned boundaries start blurring. Then they will need to be combined anyways.
 
The Nishant drone, eh? A pretty bad starter, considering we lost all six of the drones in accidents. As for the Rustom, well, the induction of that drone is so delayed by this point that it will start rivaling the HJT-36 in a few years.

That said, ADE has had some successes. The Lakshya target drones, Tapas, and potentially the Archer all come to mind.

Regardless, the ADA should focus on their share of work rather than stoke up tensions for no reason. UAVs and UCAVs are not part of their work, and they already have more than enough on their plate in form of the Tejas Mk 2, AMCA, and TEDBF.
The nishant drone was supposed to be a cheap surveillance drone (which it was) but it was modified to be something which it wasn't designed to be. Indrunil banerjee has a good thread in twitter regarding the nishant.

Agree both the ADA and ADE have their problems but I think there needs to be 2 rival groups working within an organization, tasked with 2 different tasks. Better results gets better rewards.
 
If incapable they need to leave way for ADE to progress ..work speaks more than anything else..
I think the problem is...well there's a perception anyway that ADA is more competent than ADE, and they're sore about their results of hard work being shifted to ADE and being denied the glory.
 
Fire the heads. ADA to focus on high level development, ADE to be responsible for wingman. It's not that complicated. Both heads report to Minister of defense. Keep technical ranks hold top positions no need for Babu's.
 
It is good to have 2 organizations and competition. ADA should focus on projects like Mk2, AMCA, and TEDBF. For those worried, officials who worked on these projects till now can be transferred to ADE so that previous work and experience won't be lost and can shorten development time (after all, these are 2 organizations under a single umbrella, and this frustration and anger should be shown in the execution and completion of the program, which is quite rare among these people, rather than complaining and pointing fingers, with the usual common delays in project execution).
 
These kind of competitoins exists everywhere, need not be topics of concerns to come to a media level. Media should discourage publishing these kind of details into public.
 
Right now ADA has far too many projects and not enough staff and talent to develop the Tejas MK2, AMCA and TEDBF which is a lot and requires a lot of complex research and development.

Also ADA messed up completely in designing and developing the Rustom drone project completely. It’s better to get a dedicated team from ADE who can dedicate and focus solely on drone development.

Also the two agencies should not look at creating any turf war or frictions. Both agencies should carry out their work with dedication and without any ego and develop the technology and capabilities that’s required for the country. That’s what they should focus on more.
 
Such problems happen, when there is no clearly defined roles and responsibilities, credit and reward should be set appropriately. Just by dividing the functions without specific roles and responsibility is going to lead to tussle and pushing responsibility. Hopefully these issues are addressed on timely basis.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,464
Messages
37,405
Members
2,408
Latest member
ashok2708
Back
Top