Driven by innovation yet hindered by bureaucracy, India’s defence electronics sector continues to face challenges in its pursuit of self-reliance. In an interactive session at the EFY Expo in Pune, Commander (Retired) Rupak Berry from Guardinger Technologies explored proximity fuses and radar systems to highlight these hurdles.
Over the past five to six years, the government has actively promoted a startup culture, resulting in numerous defence projects and opening the sector to private industry. There was a time, not long back, when the domain was dominated by DRDO and Public sector undertakings (PSUs). I must admit that many of them lacked efficiency. Then came this shift towards private participation. Working closely with other countries, like Israel Aerospace Industries, I have realised how significant this change is; discipline in defence culture contributes a lot to national success.
After my retirement from the Navy, I am working with Guardinger Technologies, a Pune-based deep tech research and development (R&D) firm specialising in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) products. Our company was founded through the IDEX programme: Innovation in Defence Excellence, under the Defence Innovation Organisation, modelled on US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and inspired by Israel’s startup culture.
For the last six to seven years, IDEX has launched multiple challenges and funding solutions ranging from ₹15 millon to ₹250 million, with companies contributing their share.
We, for example, have won three IDEX projects: the first is an AI-based sonar noise cancellation system, crucial for underwater domains, now undergoing shipboard trials with inputs from Israel’s Defense Signals Intelligence and Technology (DSIT). The second uses eddy current sensors to monitor naval outboard shaft bearings, eliminating the need for diver inspections. The third, condition-based predictive maintenance (CPPM), is a condition monitoring platform designed to predict failures across Indian Navy equipment.
However, this is not about us, but about the entire defence ecosystem in this country, its areas for improvement, and its prospects.
The two opportunities: proximity fuses and radars
I will focus on two defence electronics opportunities: radio proximity fuses and active-phase array radars. Proximity fuses, which originated in the Second World War, turn ammunition into smart munitions by detonating only near a target, significantly improving kill rates. Though they cost far more than standard shells, they offer precision and efficiency.
In India, its development is led by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) in Pune and Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) in Hyderabad, both relying on imported frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar technology from South Africa and Israel. Achieving true indigenous capability under Make in India remains the challenge.
I come to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) here. Within DRDO, the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) in Pune is the nodal agency for proximity fuse development. The challenge is not just designing a fuse, but also ensuring it meets stringent weight limits, survives the extreme stress of being fired from artillery, and performs reliably at speeds of up to Mach 2 in missiles. Proving a concept in the lab is one thing; delivering consistent field performance is far more demanding.
Recently, the DRDO floated a Technology Development Fund (TDF) project, offering funding of up to ₹500 million, depending on the complexity. The goal is to develop a universal FMCW-based proximity sensor using system-on-chip (SoC) technology, suitable for multiple missile and ammunition platforms. Meanwhile, IDEX has also awarded proximity fuse development projects; one to a company in Kanpur and another in Bengaluru.
As these initiatives reflect the demanding operational requirements across services, the requirements of the Navy and Army differ. Naval fuses for 76mm shells must handle sea-skimming missile threats and reject sea clutter through specialised algorithms, while Army fuses for 105mm or 155mm guns engage targets at higher altitudes. Artillery shells present additional challenges due to limited internal space for electronics, compared to missiles.
From my experience working with Israel, their teams were confident in miniaturising electronics to meet these constraints. Achieving this within India’s defence R&D and private industry again remains a significant hurdle.
There have been examples where hardware components were reduced by integrating functions into a single chip or package. While technically possible, practical challenges remain. I recall a project from 15 years ago, where sourcing a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) for a servo system proved difficult in India. Local suppliers like Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) only provided standard catalogue items, and custom solutions were often discussed in terms of order volumes and guarantees rather than technical feasibility.
In contrast, when I visited Israel’s Singer Instruments, they supplied such components worldwide without hesitation. This highlights a broader gap: in India, there is often limited willingness to adapt designs to specific needs, and change can be slow—sometimes taking decades.
Miniaturisation and modernisation require early alignment in design, investment, and a clear strategy to manage obsolescence. In defence, outdated technologies can linger for years, making forward planning and adaptability essential to meet global standards.
Looking at the broader ecosystem for proximity fuses in India, DRDL, which is involved in missile design, and Bharat Dynamics, which manufactures missiles, are key stakeholders. Alongside them, BEL and ECIL also play an active role in this domain.
To illustrate the challenge, one IDEX project, labelled Problem Statement 56, was issued by BEL for developing a proximity sensor for a naval artillery fuse. The requirement was for the sensor to engage targets at speeds up to Mach 1.5, operating at altitudes from 0.5 to 30 metres, and to reject sea clutter. It also needed to function within a 76mm naval shell and conform to FMCW radar principles.
The physical demands are considerable: the fuse must withstand up to 20,000G and 20,000RPM, generated as the shell spins in the gun barrel and follows its ballistic path. Meeting these operational specifications is a far greater challenge than designing the electronics alone.
The gaps and the way forward for indigenous defence
IDEX results are published transparently, with awards declared on their website after evaluation rounds. The process is relatively fast; two to three months in most cases, unless a challenge is put on hold. One such challenge was awarded to a Pune-based company for a 30mm proximity fuse.
A fuse typically comprises a sensor, antenna, electronics, detonator, and a safety-and-arming mechanism. As the projectile approaches a target, the reflected signal strength increases; once it crosses a threshold, the mechanism arms and triggers detonation.
One recent DRDO TDF proposal called for designing a multi-band RF SoC for proximity sensor applications. Despite decades of joint ventures and collaborations, including projects I worked on with Israel 20 years ago, India still imports proximity fuses, with no clearly defined roadmap for indigenous production. There is no commitment from any agency on timelines, investment, or execution.
The reality is that a small private company in Israel, specialising solely in radio proximity fuses, supplies complete solutions to India. In contrast, multiple agencies in India operate independently, each with its own foreign collaborations, resulting in duplication and fragmentation.
The challenge here is less technical and more managerial: there is no central authority driving the effort, no unified strategy, and no single entity accountable for delivering a domestic capability. A coordinated approach, with clear public roadmaps and accountability across the three services, is essential to close this gap.
Testing these systems presents another challenge. The Army controls firing ranges, and if I am developing a circuit or a complete fuse, once I am ready, I have to request range allocation. For missiles, telemetry can be used to collect performance data. However, for artillery shells, space is often too limited to include telemetry, so performance evaluation relies on other parameters; ultimately, the best proof is whether it hits the target.
In the lab, we can simulate targets to test circuits before moving to live trials. However, for real-world testing, the relevant service, such as the Navy, must arrange the appropriate platform and provide either a simulated or dummy target. Gaining access to the required facilities is often not straightforward, and procedural bottlenecks and an overall cautious working culture slow progress.
Documentation is another hurdle. Often, when tasked with developing an indigenous equivalent of a foreign product, the relevant manuals or reference documents, already available with DRDO or other defence agencies, are not shared with us. If they were, development could start from a known baseline, speeding up the process. Instead, we are often left to work from scratch, even when the foreign equipment is already in the possession of the agencies we are developing for.
The proposed design for a fuse required separate transmitter and receiver antennas, along with a dedicated transceiver card. Interestingly, there is a Chinese research paper on adapting a 24 GHz FMCW radar, typically used in automotive driver-assist systems, for proximity fuses. This adaptation is feasible, provided the chip meets full military-grade performance standards.
Power supply design is also critical. In an artillery shell, the fuse’s effective performance window is barely five seconds, from the moment the shell begins its descent towards the target. That short time demands flawless activation and reliability. Designing both the power supply and the electronics in-house is challenging; in fact, DRDO has separate agencies working on each, and only huge companies tend to tackle both aspects.
The DRDO’s TDF project plan includes defined milestones: design review, preliminary design review (PDR), critical design review (CDR), design testing, qualification, production, and documentation. Payments to developers are tied to these milestones, with each successful review unlocking the next tranche of funding.
The delays in securing investment and navigating bureaucratic processes remain significant challenges in defence projects. These obstacles discourage collaboration and hinder progress, affecting trust and reputation within the sector.
Despite working with multiple agencies, India continues to import essential systems such as proximity fuses, and these challenges prevent the development of fully indigenous solutions. A more collaborative and coordinated effort, with clear roadmaps, timelines, and accountability, is essential for India to reduce its dependence on imports and achieve self-reliance in defence technology.
Based on a session titled ‘Opportunities in the Defence Electronics Industry’ delivered by Commander Rupak Berry (Retired), Program Manager of Guardinger Technologies, at the EFY Expo held at the Auto Cluster Exhibition Center, Pune, on 17 May 2025. It has been transcribed and curated by Shubha Mitra, Journalist at EFY.
