Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 27 Jan 2015 23:36

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 07:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
The "Industrial revolution" started around 1800 and continued for over a century. During that century, the countries of Europe and the USA underwent fundamental changes as science was applied to create machines that made human labour more efficient. Steam power, mining, chemicals, spinning and weaving and metallurgy. Faster transport and communication, reliable ships, railways, the telegraph etc ensured that Europe and the US were industrial societies by 1900.

Experimentation had led to the invention of the unpowered glider, and in 1903, the Wright brothers, who were IIRC bicycle makers built upon the concepts of a light and strong structure and the internal combustion engine and created the first powered aircraft. 11 years later, WW1 broke out and thousands of aircraft were manufactured to fight and concepts like recce, dogfights, air defence and bombing had all been "invented" before the end of the 1914-1918 war. By 1900, Europe and the US had already had 100 years of industrial development.

Remember the date 1800 (or 1799) by which time the "Industrial revolution" was starting in Europe. What was happening in India? Just 93 years before - in 1707, Aurangzeb had died. Elderly people who had live under Aurangzeb's rule were still alive in India at that time. India was in a flux and the east India company was expanding. 100 years later, by 1800 the East India company itself was a rich multinational ruling India. So by the time the British crown took over India in 1847, There had been virtually no socio economic progress for Indians.

I need to clarify that statement a bit. India had plenty of rich kings, some of whom benefited from trade with Britons. India also had a business class, typically family run businesses but learning had come to an end. One needs to recall that the entire business of the east India company was trade. Import of things from India and export to india. Export to India was manufactured goods from the new industries of Britain. It made no sense to have industries in India. Indians were the consumers. The only Indians who benefited were the traditional royals who collected tax and some Indian businessmen. The Kshatriya class ruler and his court were OK as were some (vysya class) businessmen. But the vast Indian countryside left out most people from the new changes. Because of British imports of steel and cloth, traditional Indian workmen, the shudras, the "engineers" and innovators who made things with their hands went out of business. carpenters, weavers, potters, metalworkers etc. Of course the cotton growers did well as did cotton traders. But the trading class were always going to be OK.

India's first engineers were trained in the mid 1850s. They were only civil engineers and only a handful were trained in the early colleges in Kolkata and Chennai (and Rourkee, I think). It was not until the 1930s that the first mechanical engineers were trained in India. So by 1940 India had a modest educated class of people who were from backgrounds like the royalty and armed forced (kshatriya), business (vysya) and some brahmins who served as accountants, clerks and scientific helpers to the British. India had virtually no "manufacturing class" (shudra). Oh we had millworkers, and railway workers. But no factories where goods designed by indians for India were produced. Of course in the middle of all this, about 90% of Indians were illiterate anyway (1930 figures). Compare that with about 80% literate in Europe and 90% literate in the USA at that time! By that time the fathers or grandfathers of BRFites today had been born.

In 1950 or so Britain had 9 million factory workers, 18% of the population. Check the comparison for India:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... king+Class
Quote:
On the eve of World War I there were 951,000 factory workers in India. A quarter of a century later (1939) there were 1,751,000. During the period between the two world wars the total number of industrial workers, including artisans, remained virtually unchanged
.

India's share of industrial production and industrial output in the world is directly related to our shudras, the factory workers and engineers and even after independence we had a miniscule number.

India had 370 million people in 1950. We only had 10-15% literacy and about 2 million factory workers. Britain had 50 million people, about 90% literacy and 9 million factory workers. And they still had to import workers for their factories! Our literate people in 1950 were ruling class, business families, military officers and government employees. We hardly had any engineers. Our colleges had started producing mechanical, chemical and electrical and other engineers barely 15 years before 1950.

The fact that the HT-2 (a basic trainer aircraft) was made in India in 1951 is a flash in the pan. Almost pretence. We had nowhere near the industrial and social development of the west at that time. We had not built a single engine or a machine tool. I am certain the HT 2 was made using lathes, presses, and machines that were imported earlier for the WW 2 war effort. So while we are allowed to feel pride at the achievement of the HT 2 that achievement hides that decrepit state of out industry in that era. By 1950 India had missed out on 150 years of industrial development. Even if we thought that we were "getting there" the bald facts are that you cannot catch up with 150 years of industrialization in 10, or 20 or even 50 years.

It is easy to underestimate the level to which your country needs to be industrialized to produce even one single aircraft in house. An aircraft may have half a million different parts. Each part has to be designed and mass produced. The materials that make that part requires chemistry and metallurgy . Making the machines that will make that part requires engineers - and the humble machine worker.

The aicraft has wings. Those wings are made of aluminium, steel and some composites. Mines have to exist for those materials, The ore must be refined and the metal extracted and purified, and the metal then alloyed if need be and then formed by moulding, casting or shaping to form wing skin, internal wing structure, rivets, nuts, bolts. In the 1930s wings were often made of wood and fabric, so any European or American who learned about wings in the 1920s and 30s would learn about aerodynamics, but would be less skilled in the design of metal wings. But at east he would not be stuck in aerodynamics theory. The Indian engineer knew neither.

The wings would need a separate factory floor, but the nuts bolts and rivets would themselves need a separate factory and separate machines to fashion them. The glass parts of the aircraft like lights, dials would need a separate glass factory. For that a good quality glass manufacturing unit would first be required and machines places in that factory to make the glass. Some engineering skills are required to make those machines that make the glass that then if used in the aircraft. And the design skills and metallurgy for those machines that make the glass. Several separate factory units are needed for the glass alone. By the 1900s Europe and the USA already had factories manufacturing machines to make other machines. India had none in 1950.

Every one of these machines need motors. So you need machines to make motor parts and metallurgy to design the motor. You need copper, ceramics and ruber/plastic industries to support the motor manufacture. And you need skilled workmen to design and make the motors that drive the machines that make the machines that make the rivets, nuts, bolts, wings and glass.

Every aircraft has kilometers of wiring. Wiring needs a copper industry. Copper mines or a source of ore. Extraction and refining. Machines are required to be manufactured by a separate factory for mining, extraction and refining and another machine for creating wire out of coper metal. Once the copper is ready you need a separate plastics industry to make the insulation for the wires. For that you need access to the raw material (Petroleum products) refineries to extract the raw material and a further factory to make the insulation for the wires. And of course you need factories that manufacture the machines that make the insulation. And workers.

Then every aircraft has some parts that undergo great stresses. You need light extra strength materials for this. This may be titanium or tungsten - so you need a separate metallurgical line to handle those materials. Some like titanium cannot be welded like steel and do not agree to change shape as you want like copper. Handling them is a matter of research, experience and skill. Once developed the skills are passed from workman to workman (shudra to shudra) on the factory floor. They cannot be read from a book and chanted like a mantra. This is why production lines (such as submarines and aircraft- should not be closed down - but I will come to that later.

The aircraft has some fabric parts. Some places may have specialised fabric that needs special spinning and manufacturing processes to withstand stresses. So you need a separate factory unit for the fabrics and a separate line of industries that make the machines that weave and stitch the fabric.

Then you have the electrical and electronic parts - each category needing the same background knowledge and industrial infrastructure as I have detailed above. Finally you have insulation, seals and tyres, so you need an industry that can manufacture high quality rubber and synthetic materials. We all know how the space shuttle Challenger crashed because of a faulty rubber ring. Every time you fly your life depends on hundreds of such rubber rings and washers. And finally the engines. Any average engine is at least as complicated as the aircraft itself and each engine part requires all of the above and more

By 1900, when Europe and the USA were about to start making the first aircraft all the industries that I mention above already existed. They already had the level of industrialization, the engineering training and the workers to do all those things. India had zilch even in 1950, that is 5 decades later. When your daddy was born he was born into an India that was 150 years behind the west in terms of technology, education and industry. Nothing already existed and everything had to be built up from scratch. Why is anyone surprised or upset at the Indian aviation industry? Why does anyone even dare to believe that we can just get there in 10 years or even 50 years? Only ignorance of facts can make one think that way. It is India, not the industry alone that is backward. If you have an ignorant "educated class" of people who do not know their own country in addition to a fundamentally backward country, that is a formula for whining, self hate and imports.

When modern (modern????) India came into being in 1947, India was hardly different from Somalia or Afghanistan today in terms of development. Your grandfather, and maybe even your father was born by then. In Somalia. It was just called India. But we got a "modern" democratic system, a modern liberal constitution because we had free thinking "modern" people at the top leading a decrepit 1700s, pre industrial revolution nation. This was India around 1950. Compare with a USA that had already made the F-86 Sabre (1948) by then, and a UK that had already mad e the De Havilland Vampire (1946) and a USSR that had already made the MiG 15! (1948)

Now if you look at India's top leadership in 1947-1960, we had bureaucrats and leading politician-administrators (kshatriya class, brahmin advisors). We had business magnates (vysya class) but India was short of shudra manufacturing skills. The kshatriya-brahmin leaders and vysya business class who ran the nation had to equip the armed forces with weapons. But the weapons of 1950 were weapons like Sabres and Vamipres that were products of 150 years of shudra-engineering in the West. What choice did the Indian leadership have to maintain a modern armed force?

India just did not have the 150 year old industrial infrastructure and skilled shudra-engineering workforce and factories to make modern weapons. Your grandfather was alive at this time. The brahmin-kshatriya-vysya leadership of India had to use the nation's money to do deals with British, Russian and American Vysyas and give their competent shudra engineering industries a lot of money and work. This was fine as long as the scheming leaders of the west wanted to supply India with what we needed. But they squeezed us as and when it suited them.

What was the alternative? The alternative was to try and set up an indigenous industrial base to get our own engineer-workman-shudra workforce up to speed. We literally had 150 years catching up to do. As always, everyone wants to take credit for success, but failure is blamed on someone else. If you look up the relevant sources, you will find that test pilots in the west were being killed at the rate of 1 a week in th 1950s. These were all failures. But the west never gave up or stopped. The west never cursed their shudra engineers as incompetent bums who cannot deliver. When they delivered, the armed forces accepted less than perfect equipment (I will make a separate cross post of that below)

What do we do? We start with an industrial base that is 150 years behind the top 10 countries. We urgently do deals with western vysyas (business houses/MNCs) and give their experienced shudras (factory workers) business. And we spend some paise on asking our shudra to give us in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years military products that the shudras of the west developed using 150 years of experience. and when our shudra engineers are unable to bridge a 150 year gap in 50 years we have only contempt for them. Our contempt for them is largely because we as a nation consist of brahmins, kshatriyas and vysya-type thinkers leading the nation. We do not understand the practical engineering difficulties of the shudra. Just like a man may pay a prostitute for services, we pay a bunch of shudra engineers/technicians and expect results with no insight into why results are available abroad and not here. In our minds we Indians see ourselves as equal to the people of the west. So the failure of our products is not our failure. It is the stupid incompetents who have failed despite our paying them so much money and despite giving them 30 or 50 years. But we do not understand and do not want to understand that Indian industry and education simply cannot catch up with 150 years of industrialization in 50 years. And unless we spend and accept failures we will never ever get there.


Last edited by shiv on 15 May 2012 10:13, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 08:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Before I made the above post, I had some thoughts about when an aircraft is "really really" ready for service. I will cross post that here. I don't mean to be harsh about anyone - but it seems to me that there have been nations in the past who have been forced to equip their armed forces with "less than world class" equipment that was faulty and unreliable. but they went ahead and suffered that, leading to a robust world leading industry some decades down the line.

There is a semi-philosophical question that asks "When is a fighter really ready for operational flying?"

I don't know the real answer to this question but I guess a safe answer would be "A fighter is ready for operational flying when it is capable of performing the roles envisaged for it in an air force which inducts the fighter, is reliable, and is available in adequate numbers and is fully serviceable when required"

Clearly this is a broad general definition where specifics are left vague. But using the above broad definition I am tempted to think that Air Forces of the world induct aircraft only when they reach that stage as per the definition above. But hey presto, when I look back at the history of military aviation, this is what I find, from WiKi and I post that at the bottom. If you read the list you find that the richest and most powerful country on earth has a record of inducting fighters long before they were really ready. Many were plain unsafe. I am sure the US could have turned to Britain or France for imports. But they did not.

I post his in the context of when the LCA will be declared as ready, but I do feel a separate thread on the evolution of military aviation along with industrial development may be a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_ ... Phantom_II
Quote:
In air combat, the Phantom's greatest advantage was its thrust, which permitted
a skilled pilot to engage and disengage from the fight at will.[37] The massive
aircraft, designed to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range,
lacked the agility of its Soviet opponents and was subject to adverse yaw during
hard maneuvering. Although thus subject to irrecoverable spins during aileron
rolls, pilots reported the aircraft to be very communicative and easy to fly on
the edge of its performance envelope. In 1972, the F-4E model was upgraded with
leading edge slats on the wing, greatly improving high angle of attack
maneuverability at the expense of top speed.[38]

The J79 engines produced noticeable amounts of black smoke, a severe
disadvantage in that the enemy could spot the aircraft.[39] This was solved on
the F-4S fitted with the −10A engine variant which used a smoke-free
combustor.[40]

The F-4's biggest weakness, as it was initially designed, was its lack of an
internal cannon. For a brief period, doctrine held that turning combat would be
impossible at supersonic speeds and little effort was made to teach pilots air
combat maneuvering. In reality, engagements quickly became subsonic.
Furthermore, the relatively new heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles at the
time were frequently reported as unreliable and pilots had to use multiple shots
(also known as ripple-firing), just to hit one enemy fighter. To compound the
problem, rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in
most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Many pilots
found themselves on the tail of an enemy aircraft but too close to fire
short-range Falcons or Sidewinders. Although in 1967 USAF F-4Cs began carrying
SUU-16 external gunpods containing a 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan Gatling cannon,
USAF cockpits were not equipped with lead-computing gunsights,until the
introduction of the SUU-23, virtually assuring a miss in a maneuvering fight.
Some Marine Corps aircraft carried two pods for strafing. In addition to the
loss of performance due to drag, combat showed the externally mounted cannon to
be inaccurate unless frequently boresighted, yet far more cost-effective than
missiles. The lack of a cannon was finally addressed by adding an internally
mounted 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan on the F-4E.[38]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader
Quote:
The Crusader was not an easy aircraft to fly, and was often unforgiving in
carrier landings where it suffered from yaw instability, and the
poorly-designed, castered nose wheel made steering on the deck problematic. It
earned a reputation as an "ensign killer" during its early service
introduction.[9] The nozzle and air intake were so low when the aircraft was on
the ground or the flight deck that the crews called the plane "the Gator." Not
surprisingly, the Crusader's mishap rate was relatively high compared to its
contemporaries, the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and the F-4 Phantom II.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... uper_Sabre
Quote:
The F-100A officially entered USAF service on 27 September 1954 with 479th
Fighter Wing at George AFB, CA. By 10 November 1954, the F-100As suffered six
major accidents due to flight instability, structural failures, and hydraulic
system failures, prompting the Air Force to ground the entire fleet until
February 1955. The 479th finally became operational in September 1955. Due to
ongoing problems, the Air Force began phasing out the F-100A in 1958, with the
last aircraft leaving active duty in 1961. By that time, 47 aircraft were lost
in major accidents.[2] Escalating tension due to construction of the Berlin Wall
in August 1961 forced the USAF to recall the F-100As into active service in
early 1962. The aircraft was finally retired in 1970.

By the time the F-105 mock-up had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft
had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it, was abandoned
in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75. Anticipating a protracted
development of the engine, it was expected that the first aircraft would use the
smaller Pratt & Whitney J57. Near the end of 1953, the entire program was
canceled by the USAF due to a number of delays and uncertainties regarding the
aircraft, however on 28 June 1954, the USAF officially ordered 15 F-105s (two
YF-105As, four YF-105Bs, six F-105Bs and three RF-105Bs) under the Weapon System
designation WS-306A.[5][9][10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-105_Thunderchief
Quote:
By the time the F-105 mock-up had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft
had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it, was abandoned
in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75. Anticipating a protracted
development of the engine, it was expected that the first aircraft would use the
smaller Pratt & Whitney J57. Near the end of 1953, the entire program was
canceled by the USAF due to a number of delays and uncertainties regarding the
aircraft, however on 28 June 1954, the USAF officially ordered 15 F-105s (two
YF-105As, four YF-105Bs, six F-105Bs and three RF-105Bs) under the Weapon System
designation WS-306A.[5][9][10]

The YF-105A prototype first flew on 22 October 1955, with the second YF-105A
following on 28 January 1956.[9] In spite of being powered by a less potent
J57-P-25 engine with 15,000 pounds-force (67 kN) of afterburning thrust (the J75
was expected to generate 24,500 lbf (109 kN) with afterburner), the first
prototype attained the speed of Mach 1.2 on its maiden flight.[11] Both
prototypes featured conventional wing root air intakes and slab-sided fuselages
typical of the early jets; Republic viewed the YB-105As as not being
representative of the true capability of the aircraft due to numerous changes
prior to production.[12] Insufficient power and aerodynamic problems with
transonic drag, as well as Convair's experience with their F-102, had led to a
redesign of the fuselage in order to conform to the Area rule, giving it a
characteristic "wasp waist".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dy ... 1_Aardvark
Quote:
Lacking experience with carrier-based fighters, General Dynamics teamed with
Grumman for assembly and test of the F-111B aircraft. In addition, Grumman would
also build the F-111A's aft fuselage and the landing gear.[20] The General
Dynamics and Grumman team faced ambitious requirements for range, weapons load,
and aircraft weight.[21] The F-111 design also included new features on a
production military aircraft, such as variable-geometry wings and afterburning
turbofan engines.[20]

The F-111A mock-up was inspected in September 1963. The first test F-111A was
rolled out of the General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas plant on 15 October 1964.
It was powered by YTF30-P-1 turbofans and used a set of ejector seats as the
escape capsule was not yet available.[18] The F-111A first flew on 21 December
1964 from Carswell AFB, Texas.[22] The first F-111B was also equipped with
ejector seats and first flew on 18 May 1965.[23][24]

To address stall issues in certain parts of the flight regime, the engine inlet
design was modified in 1965-66, ending with the "Triple Plow I" and "Triple Plow
II" designs.[25] The F-111A achieved a speed of Mach 1.3 in February 1965 with
an interim intake design.[18][25] Cracks in the F-111's wing attach points were
first discovered in 1968 during ground fatigue testing, and an F-111 was crashed
the following year due to the issue. The attach structure required redesign and
testing to ensure adequate design and workmanship.[26] Flight testing of the
F-111A ran through 1973.[27]

The F-111B was canceled by the Navy in 1968 due to weight and performance
issues, along with the need for additional fighter requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 09:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 May 2009 12:33
Posts: 178
Location: LOC
wow fantastic read......
and adding to that.. [may be out of context] , here in our country we never choose our career based on our interest or passion , we are choosing the path mostly because of the factors like "get the job quickly" , "which area is highly paid"... etc , the reason why we are doing this because by the time we finished our education we [or most of us ] will be in a situation such as "our familiy will be depending on our revenue" , so we have no other choice rather than going for a job instead of finding a job which is in our own interset... having said that in west they never face such situation , they will be independent of their family while in college it self , so what ever they are doing it is for them and it is up to them to decide which career path to select , so obviously they will select the path which they are in interest of and they will shine in that path.....

when the IT boom is happend in india most of the students in our country just want to study IT in their engineering with out even considering their passion , the reason that i am saying is my self i joined IT just because of job guarantee after the college.. but now after 5-6 of my career , i dont know whether i am satisfied with my job or not.....

sorry for going OT....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 10:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
How many friends and relatives do you have who have said "I went abroad because I wanted to study or do research in areas which are simply not available in India". Perhaps you are yourself one such person, like I was. Perhaps you stayed abroad because what you did is still unavailable in India.

But if you look at the background of people who went abroad from India for this reason you find that the vast majority of them have a science/engineering/medicine background. You also find that "abroad" for these people did not mean Egypt, Uganda or Panama. It was always the USA or Western Europe.

There is a curious twin coincidence here that I would like to talk about.

Very few Indians went abroad saying "I want to learn cooking", or "I want to learn singing/pottery/catering". No one went abroad saying "I want to learn how to wash dishes and clothes" or "i want to learn how to grow rice", "I want to learn how to make bullock cart wheels". All these were available in India. It was science, technology and engineering that were not available.

And like a key fits a lock, that science, engineering and tech was not only available in the west, but they were paying people to go there. So "learning" was lucrative to boot. The very fact that you could go abroad to earn and learn while it was not possible in India should give you an example of how decrepit and undeveloped India was, and remains (in some areas) to this day. No wonder those hardworking Indians who went abroad were happy with their choice. And naturally, it was not Panama or Egypt that was attracting them.

So what about those who did not go? I am certain that most would have wanted to go for the same reasons but at least half stayed behind for lack of opportunity to go or lack of finances or some other hurdle. Maybe they could not pass TOEFL (Stooopiddd!) Or could not afford to travel to Lahore or Singapore to write the exam. Naturally these people did not get the opportunity to do what their peers were doing abroad. They would have sought and got employment in India, in an industrial and technical set up that was 100 years behind the west, where their "more successful" classmates and peers had gone. Some may have got employed in Hindustan Motors manufacturing Ambassadors. Others would have got employed in Birla cement plants. Still others would have joined DRDO, BEL, HAL.

And with research funding being next to nothing in India as the bean counters of Delhi looked for "value for money" these engineers languished in a set up that gave timed promotions, a pension but had no sympathy for failure as a path to success. They had to be content with assembly, screwdriver tech and saffron/white and green paint. Everything else was bound to fail except the employment and the pension. Even these people would have preferred to have gone abroad I am certain. If they were "failures" they failed only in getting out of a decrepit 17th century nation living in the 20th century.

Science and technology development means sinking money into failed products until something succeeds. All innovation is like that. When the government funds research, the government has to be ready for failures. Innovation and invention can be private investment or government investment. But the private investors of India, have never ever liked the idea of making investments in failure prone science research (Except Tatas) . Indian governments must get some credit for doing that, even if they did not have a clue as to what they were doing and how. The kept the DRDO and Public Sector enterprises alive despite a continues series of dismal failures and small advancements.

No businessman (Vysya) will sink money into an enterprise which will swallow money and give no returns in a reasonable time. All research is like that. It swallows money and gives no returns in reasonable, predictable time. And all sensible businessmen will dislike such investment. So the little money that has been sunk into research comes from the government and goes into government enterprises. But if you look back at names like Wright, Sikorsky, Douglas etc - it is all about private individuals sinking private money into failure prone research and eventually hitting the jackpot.

Where are the Indian private investors in risky science and tech research? Rich private businessmen funded Gandhi and supported Nehru before independence. What did they do for science research in the 50s, 60s and 70s? The government and businesses were being run by people who behaved like the stereotypical brahmins and banias who would not waste time and money on the shudra who could not deliver goods for a given price at a given time.

Unfortunately science and technology are not trade-able commodities that appear for a given price at a given time. But the west had learned that lesson 100 years before Indians even became aware. And Indians still don't seem to get it. We still behave like a feudal (kshatriya-brahmin) nation with rich traders/businessmen (vysyas) who flatly say they do not understand the problems of science research and ask how it is being done in the west. And like businessmen we find value for money in buying ready-made from the west and asking about how stupid our own shudra engineers in our factories are. But we do not want to fund research. We do not want to fund failure. We want delivery on time. These are excellent vysya business traits. But they are no good for science and tech leading to tech leadership. It is the shudra work that we need to foster and develop, expecting failures as we go along.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 12:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Posts: 282
Location: Mumbai, India
^^My God. This topic is being wasted inside only the Mil Forum. Admins, is it possible to Xpost this to Strategic as well? Also can this go on the BR FB & Twitter A/Cs?

Shiv, do I have your permission to share this on social media?

How many times I have wished for a cogent, reasoned answer to the legions of idiots out there who have nothing but malicious and ignorant contempt for Indian scientific achievement. This is a "little red book" or at least the start of one, to wave in their faces...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 12:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Posts: 282
Location: Mumbai, India
Such a gargantuan fact that escapes everyone - From the late 1700's onwards, the social, political and intellectual trajectory of India was severely impacted by war and colonialisation. And yet, we aren't Somalia anymore in terms of governance or even TFTA Pakistan right now! How can anyone feel anything but pride for a nation that is committed to raising itself from the filth into which it was pushed?

Another stellar point by Shiv is the collusion that our Feudal + Vysya classes have had in the degradation in native engineering ability. And the thing is, I understand. How many individuals on BR insist only on Tata/Mahindra cars or Videocon or Godrej fridges etc. etc.? I mean doesn't Chevvy give better service (it does, from personal experience)? Doesn't LG have better quality fridges? (they probably do. I experimented with Videocon. Wife still hasn't forgiven me.)

But... but... why should private persons pay for development of private Indian engineering prowess and R&D? It is government's job to do not mine. I pay taxes, my duties are done. In which case.... why should Army pay for development of Indian engineering prowess and R&D? It is government's job to do not Army's. Army defends border, army duties are done. Now pass the MiG factory please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 12:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Jaeger I am Ok with sharing anywhere. I also have no objection to moving the thread to strat - I just have issues that will fit in both places. In any case only adminullas can move a thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 21:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38910
Let it develop further and then can be moved to strat forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 21:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38910
Shiv two points.
In early 1800s the quantity of steel produced in India in the myriad village foundaries was about a million tonnes. (Steel man in India: Story of Tata Steel)
The quality of teak wood ship building in India was so highthat the merchant ships lasted longer thant those built in Europe. (Braudel)


It was the Bessemer process of making steel in large quanitiies and plate rollling mills driven by steam engines that allowed the leapfrogging of the Industrial age. Germans invented the more efficient open hearth process. The US adopted the open hearth furnaces (Andrew Carnegie) and leap forgged the GB in mid 1890s.

Advent of steel ships powered by steam changed the role of Industry in India. This happened by middle of the 19th century.
It put India in an "industrial" cold storage for a hundred years!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 01:18 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 21:27
Posts: 13
Related article:

An 8,000 Ton Giant Made the Jet Age Possible

Summary (from http://www.slashdot.org/

Quote:
The Fifty,' as it's known in company circles, broke down three years ago, there was talk of retiring it for good. Instead, Alcoa decided to overhaul their 50,000-ton, 6-story high forging press, now scheduled to resume service early this year. 'What sets the Fifty apart is its extraordinary scale,' writes Heffernan. 'Its 14 major structural components, cast in ductile iron, weigh as much as 250 tons each; those yard-thick steel bolts are also 78 feet long; all told, the machine weighs 16 million pounds, and when activated its eight main hydraulic cylinders deliver up to 50,000 tons of compressive force.' The Fifty could bench-press the battleship Iowa, with 860 tons to spare, but it's the Fifty's amazing precision — its tolerances are measured in thousandths of an inch—that gives it such far-reaching utility. Every manned US military aircraft now flying uses parts forged by the Fifty, as does every commercial aircraft made by Airbus and Boeing making the Jet Age possible. 'On a plane, a pound of weight saved is a pound of thrust gained—or a pound of lift, or a pound of cargo,' writes Heffernan. 'Without the ultra-strong, ultra-light components that only forging can produce, they'd all be pushing much smaller envelopes.' The now-forgotten Heavy Press Program (PDF), inaugurated in 1950 and completed in 1957, resulted in four presses (including the Fifty) and six extruders — giant toothpaste tubes squeezing out long, complex metal structures such as wing ribs and missile bodies. 'Today, America lacks the ability to make anything like the Heavy Press Program machines,' concludes Heffernan, adding that 'The Fifty' will be supplying bulkheads through 2034 for the Joint Strike Fighter. 'Big machines are the product of big visions, and they make big visions real.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/iron-giant/8886/

and

The machines that made the Jet Age

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/13/machines.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 04:11 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38910
shiv, Do you recall the glowing accounts in the Observers' Book of Aircraft on the above planes?
Man the writes ups were so good one felt bad at India not having access to them while the Pakis had everything in the US inventory just for the asking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 07:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
ramana wrote:
shiv, Do you recall the glowing accounts in the Observers' Book of Aircraft on the above planes?
Man the writes ups were so good one felt bad at India not having access to them while the Pakis had everything in the US inventory just for the asking.


Ramana the interesting thing is how long investments in such machinery last. Once the thing is depreciated in value it can be used to offer its services to anyone. I don't know if we have anything even 10% of the size of that forge in the link above. So tomorrow, if there is an aluminium alloy or titanium part to be forged for the Indian MCA our vysya bean counters can calculate

"It will cost 200 crores over 5 years to build a forge to do that and land has to be earmarked. Talks must be initiated with state governments to acquire land for the project. But it can be done in America for just 50 lakhs per forging provided we supply the raw material and since we need only 6 for the initial prototypes of the MCA and we have a commitment from the US that it can be done within 6 months of placing the order, the whole thing can be completed for under 10 crores by getting the job done in the USA."

The "Vysya-brain" accountants, economists and bean counters of India work in tandem with the all too clever Brahmin-Kshatriya brains of India. Imagine initiating the project to build such a forge in India

"land has been acquired and Rs 200 crores earmarked for the project but delays because of last year's floods mean that the forge will not be ready for another 2 years. The vital MCA project is being delayed by this single machine. If project management had been better, the initial order for the 6 forgings should have been sent to any one of a number of nations. It could have been done in the USA for a fraction of the time and cost."

Ultimately building national capability revolves around accepting and working around the higher costs and longer time spans simply because once the capability is built it cannot be taken away (unless some stupid allows it to be wasted).

Development of ant technology is always about making mistakes. For a country like India that is obsessed with being right, we use all sorts of arguments to show how our own people must be stupid when they fail to do something that is already done by the top 10 industrial nations of the world. Very little insight is revealed as to how those top 10 nations got there; the mistakes they made, the costs they paid in lives and money - all of which may have been done 50 to 100 years ago. We jealously say "They are doing it now. Why can't we do it? I would have done it if I was in the place of the morons who are unable to do it. They must be stupid"

Development of technology is very simple. Spend money to allow people to make mistakes and do not ask for results in any given time span.. This is so counter intuitive for a nation that has fostered profit-making traders for 3000 years that we still haven't figured it out.

The fact that a particular technology already exists in Germany or the US is of no use to us. Those countries understand the blood and sweat that had flowed to create that tech and are not going to give it away. The will sell finished products, not the tech. Technology development at cutting edge level is all about reinventing the wheel. Unfortunately if your mind works ONLY like that of a bean counter vysya/businessman you will absolutely reject the idea of any wisdom in re inventing the wheel and you will trade your security for the short term benefit of some other country doing the job of building high-technology weapons for you.

Workmen and people who build and tinker in India are not only considered "low value services" there is a tradition of considering that work as shudra work that is not equal to the nobility of the fighter, the wisdom of the thinker or the guile of the businessman. I think what is missed in India is that industrial revolution allowed the shudra-worker-engineer of the west to create and innovate such a multitude of useful and fascinating things that the vysyas of the west (supported by their kshatriya king), starting from the east India company, were able to sell those things at far higher value than anything that existed before. Ultimately the vysyas and kshatriyas of the west did benefit massively, but that benefit came after the blood, sweat and tears of technology development where mistake after mistake after mistake was made in machines that failed, or men died trying to fly planes that would not fly. Go back to that statistic of one test pilot dying per week in the 1950s developing the supersonic fighters that flew at speeds we still slobber after on BRF in 2012. But would we accept that accident rate? Those people have made sacrifices and their achievements sit on top of those sacrifices. We see the achievements today and fail to see the sacrifices that were made 50 or 100 years ago.

If we open our purses strings now and fund research in tech and accept failures and mistakes as part of the game, we can hand to the next generation technology that is closer to what is cutting edge. But it requires an understanding of what technology entails. Mistakes must be made. Mistakes in tech are not because I am a clever brahmin/bania who is wasting my tax money on stupid shudra DRDO engineer. Mistakes and failures are part and parcel of technology development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 07:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4675
Location: Duke Nukem
Quote:
Ramana the interesting thing is how long investments in such machinery last. Once the thing is depreciated in value it can be used to offer its services to anyone. I don't know if we have anything even 10% of the size of that forge in the link above. So tomorrow, if there is an aluminium alloy or titanium part to be forged for the Indian MCA our vysya bean counters can calculate


Sort of yes.. There is a PSU called Heavy Engg Corp in Ranchi, which was set up to produce components basically Steel Plants , it is a perpetually sick and mis managed unit. However the point is they do have a 20,000 ton (or some such impressive number..dont remember which) press from Skoda , from what I remember from folks in the old days telling me and stories of how when that press ran, it was literally like an entire mountain moving/earth shaking.

India did make solid investments in heavy industrial base until the 80s. In fact the entire PSU/Commanding heights strategy was based on that. Problem is, that it was terribly run and had no synergy and new product/innovation vision in the absence of a functioning market to develop and grow.

Okay. Surprise, HEC infact has a website ..and here is a laundry list of their "Unique facilities" (okay atleast in India) Unique Facility. I do see a 6000 Ton hydraulic press with Skoda written on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 07:32 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38910
Yes was going to say HEC has a heavy press.
Shiv weapons need Vishwakarma types.
Also forging gives net shapes and any flaws will show up during the mfg process as the stressess due tpo plastic deformation are much greater than the object will ever see in service.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 07:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
I just saw this news item and it makes me slap my head in despair. We have filled our nation with people who have no insight or foresight about what technology means. It seems that technology is forever going to be something to import until we can finally import someone to rule us again.

I saw the headline on BR's main page and thought "Great. That is good news" but me despair started when I read twhat the brainless reporter says:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=18515

Quote:
If you thought India had way too many unmanned air vehicle programmes, here's reason for you to slap your forehead again: The makers of the Hansa are looking to spin off an unmanned version of the trainer/general purpose aircraft.


Way too many Indians think that they know so much about technology and research that they can pass judgemental comments such as the one in that article. Shiv Aroor shows some moments of absolutely profound stupidity. He is the guy who was pushing the F-35 right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 07:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
vina wrote:
India did make solid investments in heavy industrial base until the 80s. In fact the entire PSU/Commanding heights strategy was based on that. Problem is, that it was terribly run and had no synergy and new product/innovation vision in the absence of a functioning market to develop and grow.


vina this is a "glass half-full/half-empty" topic that raises intense emotions among Indians. The policy of course was Nehru's. He was trying to copy the USSR is making the state do things for the people that the private businessman would not do. Nehru was right and wrong. There were some things the businessman would do, and some things that he would not do.

So that policy built today's HAL that makes everything from fabric seat covers, to rivets to heavy forgings to composites. But investment in heavy industries was required too. For example it can be argued that steel was available for import anyway and the crores spent on building steel plants could have been better spent "elsewhere". As part of things acquired by my grandfather in the early 20th century we still have steel rails made in England and there are actually clay tiles lining a path at home that were made in England. And there is a now broken Royal Doulton washbasin from one of the big pottery firms of the UK. Fact is that All these were being pumped into India at prices that were affordable for some and Indian businesses were making profits in such trade. But Indian workmen who should have been making them and teh designers and investors in factories to do that had been killed off over a century before that.

With no local manufacturers of rubber rings or rivets or acrylic for canopies, HAL had to make every single thing. This is so totally unlike an English or American firm making aircraft in the 1930s. The rubber rings, rivets etc would have been made by some local company who was already established and doing that for others - perhaps even for export to my grandfather in India.

This problem still hounds aircraft manufacture in India. It is cheaper to import small vital parts from existing private firms in the country of origin of the aircraft (UK/USA/CIS/Russia) rather than to set up a new factory to do that in India. But India really should have had such factories 100 years ago, all running and fully depreciated. We can have that situation in 50 years time if we make "wasteful" investments today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 08:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4675
Location: Duke Nukem
shiv wrote:
vina this is a "glass half-full/half-empty" topic that raises intense emotions among Indians. The policy of course was Nehru's. He was trying to copy the USSR is making the state do things for the people that the private businessman would not do. Nehru was right and wrong. There were some things the businessman would do, and some things that he would not do.


Whether right or wrong, Nehruvian India DID build a solid heavy industrial base, that is still relevant, alive and kicking. Without that industrial base, all the IT/Vity/shoebag stitching will lead you to be like Indonesia /Singapore/Thailand at best and not a true industrial heavy hitter.

So, point is the heavy industrial base IS available and exists right now in India largely. In fact, I would submit that post 1991/reforms that industrial base has actually gotten better. If you speak with folks who worked in those places in the 70s and 80s until the early 90s, when it was absolute despair in India , those places reeked of decay, rot and a stale musty odor of being on the death bed. The govt did put in serious efforts in the mid 80s and after 91 they were told to swim or sink, and in fact, most of them came out fine and fit. Case in point , guys like SAIL, BHEL, etc.etc.. Why HEC was one that would have been put out of it's misery as one of the most "paavum" cases. From the looks of it, HEC seems to alive and kicking and even has a website! I think it has to do with the fact that the steel and mining and other sectors saw new entrants, capacity expansion and hence increased demand for it's products.

What was broken in the 60s/70s/80s was an unsustainable and broken business model. However investments were made and REAL assets were created. It now falls upon us as a country to leverage those assets in the most optimum way and build competitive products.

For eg, despite all the R&D (Rhona & Dhona) here about how India would not have the forging capacity for say a FGFA/ AMCA /whatever, beg to differ and say that we do comfortably have the capacity right now, okay, not for a large passenger plane maybe, but that bridge can be crossed if and when we get there. Problem is HAL would never probably approach HEC by itself, but would rather say "I want a 200000000 ton press" and hold my breath for 30 years and wait for it (like the IAF did with the AJT).

Quote:
So that policy built today's HAL that makes everything from fabric seat covers, to rivets to heavy forgings to composites. But investment in heavy industries was required too. For example it can be argued that steel was available for import anyway and the crores spent on building steel plants could have been better spent "elsewhere". As part of things acquired by my grandfather in the early 20th century we still have steel rails made in England and there are actually clay tiles lining a path at home that were made in England. And there is a now broken Royal Doulton washbasin from one of the big pottery firms of the UK. ...

With no local manufacturers of rubber rings or rivets or acrylic for canopies, HAL had to make every single thing. This is so totally unlike an English or American firm making aircraft in the 1930s. The rubber rings, rivets etc would have been made by some local company who was already established and doing that for others - perhaps even for export to my grandfather in India.


That is clearly an ideology driven business model problem specific to HAL and other ossified orgs in the Public /Govt sector. The private sector can never survive in a market environment of today with such a mode. For eg, when Tata started making trucks in India, they had do make every bit,just like HAL today does, stitching seat covers and why they even had "Tata Cows" to supply milk for their townships in Jamshedpur! Now you walk into a Tata truck/car factory, you will see the exact same kind of industrial model as you would in a Toyota/VW/BMW /whatever, with just assembly being done, large part of the work outsourced to vendors, including many in their industrial clusters in say Adityapur for their Jamshedpur plants.

HAL never did that, because of the compulsions of the Neta/Babu/Union politics, where creating employment inside giant PSUs were highly desired so that you could hand out plum "Govt Jobs" and do the patronage politics , even if all this was suboptimal and highly damaging overall in terms of economic efficiency. This exactly was the line propagated by the likes of Amartya Sen, along with his other hocus pocus of Dilli/Leftist ideologues . HAL and others will be forced to change only when they face true competition and have to slim down and focus sharply. So now you know what to do about it. Grant entry to the private sector into aircraft manufacturing and let the "notified/whatever" guaranteed business on cost plus (like the BEML/Tatra) thing go and make the DPSUs compete on a level field and take away the protection and privileges they enjoy. You will see a dramatic difference within a decade.

Now you know why my handle reads as doing "Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Bazaarikaran " . The problem is fundamentally Indian industry in critical areas is in the strangle hold of an incestuous Neta-Union-Leftist Ideologue iron triangle that is simply parasitical (case in point Air India) and does serious overall damage . They are the classic definition of special interest groups, that are highly pampered. That special interest group needs to be taken head on , confronted and tamed before anything significant can happen. For eg, if Air India disappears, no one except the unions and employees would shed a tear and infact everyone else would heave a great sigh of relief to get ride of those blood sucking parasites.

Quote:
This problem still hounds aircraft manufacture in India. It is cheaper to import small vital parts from existing private firms in the country of origin of the aircraft (UK/USA/CIS/Russia) rather than to set up a new factory to do that in India. But India really should have had such factories 100 years ago, all running and fully depreciated. We can have that situation in 50 years time if we make "wasteful" investments today.


Not true. To get out of that, you have to get out of assembling Russian designs and standardize around the largest global standard ecosystem (IEEE, Stanag/NATO) and build an industry with differentiators and intellectual property around that. If the industrial strategy is going to be "import substitution" , that is a dead end and has been proven by experience the world over to be a disaster. In fact, "import substitution" and "export pessimism" were the fundamental ideological drivers (thanks to the DSE /Planning Commission worthies like Amartya again) that led India into the rocks until the 90 since independence.


Last edited by vina on 16 May 2012 08:48, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 08:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4675
Location: Duke Nukem
ramana wrote:
Yes was going to say HEC has a heavy press.
Shiv weapons need Vishwakarma types.
Also forging gives net shapes and any flaws will show up during the


Also BHPV in Vizag would have some decent heavy vessel fabrication capabilities. You probably know the best about it. Not sure if BHPV has top end capabilities, like for a Ultra Critical or Super critical boiler and pressure vessels. Probably not. But for medium stuff it might well have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 09:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4675
Location: Duke Nukem
Now you know why I have deep misgivings about the PAK-FA /FGFA project and handing out $6b or whatever to the Russians. Stuff like Ashok Nayak's interview in Business Standard on how "Our boys will learn Russian, learn to work their their way" etc and a confession "We drive left they drive right" etc sounds so ridiculous.

Our engineering heritage and philosophy is close to the west. We should build the plane to globally accepted standards and stick to our engineering philosophy . We are what we are and are pretty good. Russian engineering and standards are very different. How many in this country (maybe outside the DPSU) have engineered anything to GOST standards. Talk about IEEE,ASME,API,ABA,DIN whatever, you will find millions come crawling out of the woodwork. Our entire auto industry and ancillary industry and all of the civilian industry which is what the aerospace industry will need to tap into as well are on international standards. It will be very hard and unviable for them to tool to GOST standards which will be a very small , indeed minuscule market and zero international growth potential and civilian application. The PAKFA/FGFA is going to be a big self goal and another stereotyped import kit and assemble screwdriver operation and "indigenize" progressively as per HAL's current biz model with Russian and other fighters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 09:31 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38910
Also having press is not enough. You need the furnaces, heat treatment facility for handling non ferrous metals.

Any way once the Titanium sponge plants comes on line then DRDO/HAL will get a chance to make net shape forgings for LCA etc and will need heavy duty presses.

BTW wiki says China has the largest press now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 09:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
The Indian armed forces are of course manned by Indians and are wont to carry with them the same attitudes and strengths/weaknesses that other Indians have. The Indian armed forces are not full of special people in terms of upbringing and background, but they are special because of their selection and subsequent training.

Which then brings me to a question for which I have no answer. In fact the question itself has rarely been asked, so let me ask it.

Do the Indian armed forces demand higher standards from Indian made items than they demand from imported weapons? Or are they just stuck holding the baby having to make do with whatever they get, being screwed both by imported arms and by Indian made ones?

One question that stems out of the above question is, if imported arms suffer from drawbacks that the Indian armed forces have to endure, how are foreign users of that system managing? Did we import trash? Or are foreign armed forces somehow managing with the faulty systems made in their own countries?

The first thing that made me ask myself this question was reading that the T-72 had no air conditioning and in the Thar desert summer blocks of ice were kept in the cabin to cool the crew. Can ya believe that?

Another story is one that I have told on BRF before. A gun on a new ship imported from Russia was test fired near Mumbai. The recoil was a shocker and the breech of the gun nearly went back though its turret. The problem was that the lubricant on the recoil absorption mechanism was meant for Arctic temperatures and ran thin like hair oil at Mumbai temperatures.

Take a look at this ref:
http://www.indian-military.org/tag/fighter.html
Quote:
The Gnat T.1 served the RAF well, though it suffered from high operating costs. It had not been designed for maintainability, and some of its systems were not noted for their reliability. Its cockpit was also cramped and instructor's forward visibility was poor. <snip> The Indians were very happy with the Gnat, but the little fighter did have its problems, the worst being that its hydraulics and some of its control systems were unreliable. In 1972, the IAF issued a requirement for an improved "Gnat II", at first specifying that the new version was to be optimized as an interceptor, but then expanding the specification to include the ground-attack role.


Then look at this about the 1971 war:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21249399/1971 ... kistan-War
Quote:
Also, the serviceability of PAF Sabres was much higher -meaning more aircraft could be fielded. The Indians had 16 aircraft per combat squadron but the effective availability during the war was 12 per squadron. Bomber and transporter squadron had10 aircraft each of which about 6 to 8 were serviceable at any given time. Many PAF squadrons,in contrast, had as many as 25 aircraft. Thus, while the PAF was outnumbered in the West, at no point was it ever fighting against overwhelming odds


The Indian armed forces are clearly "managing" with less than perfect stuff. They are allowed to demand perfection from Indian stuff. But how about the armed forces of the countries that export their weapons to us? Are they getting perfection? Are they refusing to induct or use locally made systems because of the imperfections that Indians seem to accept happily in those imported systems? But if Indians are willing to start using imperfect imported systems, how far can they go in demanding perfection from Indian systems before induction?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 10:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4675
Location: Duke Nukem
ramana wrote:
Also having press is not enough. You need the furnaces, heat treatment facility for handling non ferrous metals.

Any way once the Titanium sponge plants comes on line then DRDO/HAL will get a chance to make net shape forgings for LCA etc and will need heavy duty presses.

BTW wiki says China has the largest press now.

OMG! Wiki talks about another company that has the monster 50K ton press. Know someone who worked for Wyman Gordon as a metallurgist!

Wonder where HAL get's its forgings for stuff like bulkheads etc done. From Russia ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 11:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3394
Location: Loud, Proud American
shiv wrote:
Do the Indian armed forces demand higher standards from Indian made items than they demand from imported weapons? Or are they just stuck holding the baby having to make do with whatever they get, being screwed both by imported arms and by Indian made ones?


Take this particularly fine firearm made by the OFB. Now buy the cartridges for this caliber, made by the very same OFB and fill the revolver with the ammunition and try to empty the revolver without jamming once. Guess what? Chances are so high that you won't make it without it jamming that the OFB guys recommend buying ammunition from a foreign manufacturer (Eley Bros.) and it reportedly says the same in the booklet that comes with the revolver! And why do Indian citizens have to live with this BS? Because they're the only sarkar-authorized manufacturer, that's why they can get away with this. Is it considered unreasonable to demand that OFB manufacture to a higher standard?

There are articles that claim that many of the INSAS rifles manufactured by the OFB need the army armorers to hand fit some of the parts for the rifles to function smoothly. Forget imported rifles, is it unreasonable to expect *any* manufacturer to produce rifles that don't require extra work by the user, especially at the cost that they are sold at and when there are others that produce a better product at a similar cost?

What is particularly exasperating is that this is not necessarily a case of 150 years of engineering stagnation in India. Private manufacturers in India seem to be doing just fine and produce better quality products, because unlike the OFB, they have to face competition. Take the case of the INSAS plastic mags which were originally found to be somewhat brittle in the cold. The problem was later solved and the newer magazines are much more durable. What is not nearly as well known is that the newer magazines are also not manufactured by OFB. Instead that was outsourced to 4 plastic manufacturers in India, one of which is well known in India for making plastic chairs and tables. And if one of them produces a low quality product, their business will go to the other 3 or to some other private plastic manufacturer hungry for new business opportunities.

In typing this, I'm reminded of Ardeshir Godrej, the founder of the Godrej group. From wiki article:
Quote:
Around 1909 Ardeshir read an article by Dadabhai Naoroji on the impoverishment of India through unfair trade practices and excessive taxation levied by the colonial authorities. His interest roused, Ardeshir applied to the J. B. Petit library for more material and obtained a transcript of a speech that Naoroji had made in 1876 while municipal councillor in Bombay. In the paper, Naoroji established that although India has a positive trade balance, the taxes that the colonial authorities levied consumed the advantage, leaving virtually nothing that could be invested.
Ardeshir was incensed and resolved that if India was ever to be independent, it would have to develop a local industry that was economically self-reliant. For Ardeshir, independence could not be achieved by simply boycotting British goods. Moreover, he "propagated the philosophy that every country, India or any other, had to choose its technology, production, consumption habits and marketing techniques depending on its resources and based on its genius" and that no country had the right to "coerce another to export its techniques, production and marketing systems." (Karanjia, 2001, preface)

Ardeshir was however not willing to accept that consumers should favor indigenous products just because they were indigenous. In an interview published in the Indian National Herald on April 27, 1927, Ardeshir was bitterly critical of the leaders of the Swadeshi movement who encouraged the acceptance of domestic products even if these were of substandard quality. In his opinion, there was absolutely no valid reason why Indian goods manufactured in India could not be as good as or better than those that were imported, and the encouragement to accept substandard goods was simultaneously the reinforcement of the idea that products made in India were automatically of lower quality than those manufactured abroad.

Ardeshir found the passivity of Gandhi's non-violence movement exasperating and insisted that India could become independent only if it actively made itself independent, and that self-reliance (Swadeshi) could only be achieved when accompanied by mental self-reliance, that is, self-respect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 12:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10220
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
shiv - re serviceability, certainly for aircraft there are specified standards/levels/things to do - which all operators have to do in order to have airworthy machines. so a gnat in iaf service needs just as many/few ground hours per air hour as a gnat in raf service. you can argue about relative efficiency and learning curves, but in a pure maintenance role it is not likely to be very different. it may be different in a base repair depot type scenario where the uk would have had more years of accumulated deep expertise. certainly documentaries about raf etc., do talk about significant repair/maitnenance hours for their aircraft and the ground crews constant struggle to maintain airworthiness.

re older aircraft vices being glossed over in "observer" and other books - i think if you read a little deeper, all of these deficiencies, etc., were visible - but i can imagine the need to preserve the cold war myth about reliable high tech western aircraft versus low tech shoddy soviet ones seeping into the literature


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 15:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
ArmenT wrote:
]Ardeshir was however not willing to accept that consumers should favor indigenous products just because they were indigenous. In an interview published in the Indian National Herald on April 27, 1927, Ardeshir was bitterly critical of the leaders of the Swadeshi movement who encouraged the acceptance of domestic products even if these were of substandard quality. In his opinion, there was absolutely no valid reason why Indian goods manufactured in India could not be as good as or better than those that were imported, and the encouragement to accept substandard goods was simultaneously the reinforcement of the idea that products made in India were automatically of lower quality than those manufactured abroad.


By the time Godrej was born, industry in India was at such a low ebb that the man was right for some things, but complex machines that were built upon other machines was impossible for India at that time. There were a lot of starry eyed visionaries though. My grandfather wrote a scientific paper in 1941 - which is available online. He was talking about the production of chemicals in India, and was commenting on the annual production of Sulphuric Acid in India which was 23,000 tons
Quote:
Taking the case of only one heavy chemical. namely sulphuric acid, countries like USA, Germany, France and Belgium , - every one of those countries was preparing sulphuric acid over a million tons per year. <snip> From this point, India perhaps occupies the bottom-most position in the world.
<snip>
The modern explosive industry requires cellulose, glycerine, nitric and sulphuric acids in large quantities. So far there is only one factory in India under military control to manufacture cordite. By all accounts this is a very small factory. In the scheme of national defence, sooner or later, probably sooner than we think, we shall have to provide for the manufacture of explosives for both civil and military purposes.


This was in 1941. Smack bang in the middle of WW2 giving an indicator of where our industry was. Your father was probably born by that time, if you were yourself not born.

Gurcharan Das has written about Nehruvian policies working against private enterprise, but to believe that Indian industry could suddenly pick up the slack after 1947 and catch up with the rest of the world by 1990 is a mistaken notion. Before we could even make explosives factories we would have had to set up factories to make millions of tons of initial component to be passed on to the industries that used them. India just did not have the technical expertise. My grandfather was himself one of the industrial pioneers of the erstwhile Mysore state. Unfortunately I don't own any of them, but he set up several basic industries (Paper, Soap based on Vegetable oils rather than beef tallow (Mysore Sandal Soap) for the Government of Mysore . Also an explosives unit that later became Indian Detonators Limited.

i think we just tend to imagine that things were rosier than they were. Things were dismal. We did not even have the trained experts to do these things. My own grandfather was thought in family circles to be the first or among the first chemical engineers in india.

By that time soap and dynamite factories had been around in Britain for a century and paper factories for 150 years
These were the easy things. The heavy engineering and the precision engineering required for aircraft were non existent even by 1950. Missing the industrial revolution was more serious than we are willing to acknowledge.

If the DRDO was stupid, it was the pathetic absence of a vast pool of skilled manpower to pick from. How much worse can it be if you imagine that India probably had a few thousand (or fewer) engineers by 1950. We had a million men in arms, 600 kings, 10,000 Royal family members, lakhs of clerks but a handful of Engineers. If training and experience in engineering take 20 years, we could not even begin to have a decent number of engineers till 1970. By that time my generation were in school and college.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 18:38 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 08 Dec 2009 21:18
Posts: 32
I wrote about this a while ago..

viewtopic.php?p=1025770#p1025770

Quote:
5. What was the reason to be wary of the decade of 1910? Now in hindsight, we know it was WW1. But the british empire of 1910 at the height of her military and imperial might shall see it coming quite earlier. The decisive shift was to be made in the "Vaishya" of Musalmans to Vaishya of "Christians". And among Christians, it would be continental europe (Catholics) against English (Protestants). The conquest of the Byzantium was what essentially important to secure the trade routes.

6. The drawback of Indian part was the uprising was only spearheaded by "Brahmin" aspect of samaaj-Purusha and the Kshatriya (who was mostly used as mercenary) aspect was not much pursued. The Vaishya and Shudra aspect were totally neglected. An uprising, when of brahmin character, is intellectual, principled, often dreamy and away from ground realities. A predominantly Kshatriya uprising (1857) is gory, violent creates lots of fuss but may not be effective. The Vaishya uprising (as we are witnessing today with MMS's 10% growth hogwash), gives rise to mentality where everything is for sale and promotes and encourages "mediocrity" in society. On positive aspects, it increases the wealth pool of civilization. In Shudra uprising (in essence), there is plenty of emphasis on technological aspects but lack the understanding on how to fund that "technology", against whom to be used and "why". Shudra uprising also represent "mass-movement" when even the last man of society contributes.

7. For the establishment of Dharma, there requires the "concerted coordination of these four forces" in a way that the best of all four is seen in that uprising. This explains "what went wrong" in many aspects of India's answer to Abrahmics (Vijaynagar-Maratha-Freedom struggle).

8. The necessity to install a proxy within a proxy (in form of MKG whom Pal referred to as Papal autocrat) arose acutely. It is interesting to see how the "fledgeling industrialists" of India were encouraged to help MKG's cause without running out of money. How Bajaj was still rich along with many "Zamindars" who helped INC under MKG to make his cause appear "respectable enough (by means of "allowed propaganda"). Same goes with Birla. The Tata group was anyways away from all the fuss. These people were allowed to "invest" as they were securing the second tier proxy.

9. The systemic problem which arose during first proxy arose again with rise of SCB. Now, SCB was thinking like Peshwa, savarkar, Dhingra, yet was a disciple of MKG and good friend of "Bajaj". Thus SCB represents the collaboration of "Brahmin-Kshatriya-Vaishya" networks of India's Samaaj-Purusha. What happened to him in spite of this is known to everybody. The "technology" aspect of Shudra was missing in all of these. For that, one needs patronizing Vaishya which includes their protection by Kshatriya which further means mobilization of Kshatriya by Brahmin. This time, however the need was more urgent (owing to rapid rise of third Reich). Hence SCB (and Jinnah a decade earlier) were systematically removed from the loop.

10. This gives rise to JLN. JLN is akin to pleasure loving Sultan who is an armchair visionary of some extent. Meanwhile the second Proxy (MKG) reneged from the promise and started 1942 movement. Thus, the quick-fix patch of Muslim-league was installed which demanded Partition.

11. One has to remember that by the time MKG started his movement, the battle of stalingrad was going on. The fortunes of Hitler and quit-India movement in this period went down hand-in-hand. This battle was the breathing time for British when tide had turned in their favour already. They knew by february 1943 that it was matter of time when Hitler fell and Russia was ally. The worrying part was advance of Japanese with INA and SCB towards Bengal. If SCB reached Bengal, it would take no time to unsettle this carefully placed system. As someone has rightly pointed out earlier, the occurrence of 1943 famine coincides with this possibility.

12. After 1943, the INC was beginning to "understand" the consequence of what might happen "if..." This understanding was lost from minds of India's policy makers since repression of 1857. This is when the third proxy began to rise (JLN, VBP). This proxy is predominantly of Vaishya-Shudra nature. No one in INC (IMO) understood the value of "real-estate" more aptly than Patel. This understanding of his is evident in the map of India that he created after 1947. This hawkishness is also seen in his opposition with JLN over JLN's Shikhandi-manoeuvres on cashmere issue.

13. The defeat and capture of INA personnel and their "unsuccessful, but valiant defence" by JLN in court was used to whitewash the sell out of India (in form of acceptance to partition) which perhaps the INA chief and main competitor of JLN was unaware of. What happened to him is not known to us. But can we say this with certainty that it wasn't known to Indian army, hence British and subsequently JLN (on need to know basis)? I think not. If we assume (for sake of argument) that the fate of that man was known to british, how will a pleasure-loving armchair visionary sultan react to the prospects of loosing power?

14. The vision of JLN in terms of Shudra aspects (Technology, education to poor, overall socialist bent) is well known. He also successfully linked few Vaishya families to the cause of generating capital to create a pool of technologically competent Hindus. Since installation of this third proxy, there requires a necessity to have an inherent check on the system. The kshatriya and Brahmin aspect of society was totally suppressed by JLN. There was creation of "Jagat-seth" like Vaishya-Shudra nexus which somehow prevented the rise of Brahmin-Kshatriya. The bargaining power of loss of power over JLN must be higher in 1945, but quite lower in 1962. By that time, he was an old dying man who had his share of power and pleasure. Hence, when 62 came as a rude shock to him, he started empowering the Kshatriya aspect of society too. This includes (but not limited to) invitation to RSS contingent to perform parade on rajpath on 26th Jan.

15. With Shastri coming to power rather "easily" and saying "Jai Jawan and Jai Kisan" this was the mark of a man having visions of Vaishya-Kshatriya nexus. This nexus is what we call as "Military-Industry" complex. Furthermore, he had nothing to lose.

16. JLN somehow had somehow remained relatively neutral to USA and USSR. Shastri was way too much neutral and was perhaps acting against the planted agents by both these players in delhi. This is the interesting part to ponder upon. Why was Nehru allowed to go commie? out of everybody else, why USSR? What is it that USSR held that was so compelling that British allowed their "crown jewel" be penetrated by KGB? OR was JLN doing so on his own. But then considering what happened to his progeny who tried acting independently, I do not think he will do that entirely on his own. He perhaps convinced British something in exchange? Was any decision of JLN which favoured British few years before his implementation of 5 year plan (around 1948-49)? The answer is obvious, no. Kashmir issue. By 1950, Patel was dead and by 1951, first 5-year plan was implemented. I think since then the penetration of west began to decrease in India supplanted by USSR.

15. The west has an interesting method of wresting control. The "old school" network. The universities like oxford and cambridge typically take up such potential leaders and their children to train them in the way which is "desired" for system to continue.anyways.

16. Vaishya-Shudra reform by JLN completed the remaining leg of India's revival with beginning of IITs, DAE, Patronage of Homi Bhabha (whose death is similar to SCB and Shastri), Sarabhai. Why did Bhabha disappear? Was India going too fast on "technological" uprising which will lead to rise of "Brahmin-Kshatriya" nexus? It is wise not to type out the answers which are known to everybody.

17. Post 1990, there is tendency to deny the shudra uprising in India as well. Only "Vaishya" is being encouraged. The technology (tejas, kaveri, missile etc) is all due to inertia. All the new R&D is somehow being sabotaged in name of foreign collaboration. This is how many indigenous programs were killed. Indian students from IITs and other good colleges start getting 6 figure packages when in 3rd year of their engineering in investment banking firms and IT-coolie companies. The 21-year old start enjoying life, forgetting the rigorous vows of brahmacharya which are essential to be disciplined and achieve excellence. note - Brahmacharya does not imply celibacy. It is natural to have sex, what is not permitted is to get carried away and breaking the disciplined life of a student. This is the bad news that there is now a fourth tier of "illusive world" draped in front of Indian eyes.

18. This is also a good news that there are 4 tiers of proxies which are activated now. INC>>MKG>>JLN, IG, RG>>Sonia. This is too much of "Maaya" for a thinking society like India. India is today enjoying life and pleasure like Macchindernath was enjoying when he entered the body of king and forgot that he was Yogi. All it took was a call from his disciple Gorakhnath, and the Yogi in that Bhogi King's body woke up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 18:50 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 08 Dec 2009 21:18
Posts: 32
Ability to build a jet engine is indeed very useful "tool" to track the industrial progress of a society, especially Indian society..

However there is one other indicator which is even more fundamental than ability build aircraft and engine.. that indicator is "ship building".

Since earliest days, India has been a predominantly maritime society. Be it internal navigation (rivers) or blue-water navigation, the technology and the tradition to build ships, trace routes protect routes, find new ones, indulge in naval warfare and dominate the associated trade has been integral part of Indian mercantile-military nexus.

With time, this tradition vanished owing to ills acquired by Hindu religion. While Aircraft can be studied as a tool to see the consolidation of shudra in India, it will only take you thus far..

the real consolidation of shudra-vaishya-kshatriya nexus can be studied by shipbuilding and maritime sciences.

Will write of this shortly.. India's fate was sealed when western trade routes passed on to Arabs and later portuguese. There was, and still is, no redeeming until these routes are acquired. It is a shame that in spite of such long coastline, none of the Indian company has any "mother vessel" because none can build anything so large. Nor do they have any port fit enough to dock a mother vessel. Nor do they show any vision to develop one..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 19:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Posts: 2267
Location: Bharathavarshey Bharathakhandey Jumbudweepey Kaveryaha Uttare Teerey
vilayat wrote:

With time, this tradition vanished owing to ills acquired by Hindu religion.


Sigh :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 19:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 4253
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
Two links from Wiki:
1. Indian Ocean trade
2. Sri Vijaya Malaya Empire


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 20:44 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38910
Vilayat, Good thinking. One advise publish and be damned. Spell it out so there is clairity and unity of purpose. If Gorakhnath had only been hinting would Macchindranath wake up and cry "Alak Niranjan" or for us "Uthista Bharata"?

Shipbuilding passed India in the mid 19th century with a double whammy steam engine and steel ships. This allowed bigger ships which were all weather cargo ships.

BTW, Hindusthan Shipyards in Vizag was to revive the ship building indutry but hasn't achieve much due to bureaucratic management.

As Vina says the establishment of the heavy industrial base to develop commanding heights economy was not the wrong thing but running them with non-business trained bureaucrats and party run trade unions was the crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 20:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2518
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
Quote:
Gurcharan Das has written about Nehruvian policies working against private enterprise, but to believe that Indian industry could suddenly pick up the slack after 1947 and catch up with the rest of the world by 1990 is a mistaken notion. Before we could even make explosives factories we would have had to set up factories to make millions of tons of initial component to be passed on to the industries that used them. India just did not have the technical expertise.



I agree with most of what you have written but not this point..there are plenty of Industries in which India is amongst the top 5 manufacturers.. What prevented it from being the top 5 in defence of aerospace ? If Indian pharma can be the 2nd largest in the world , why not aerospace or defence ?

I know you would call it "open fly torn shirt type argument .. But it is not.. Nehru imposed constraints ..And that was his criminality..

look at how we have grown post 90 .. Look at tata motors now...And look at the fat ambassador in the 80s..How can Nehru and IG not be culpable ? what explains the rapid growth post 90s and near stagnation from 50 -80s ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 22:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10220
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
we are good at mass production of mostly generic drugs, we are not yet strong leaders for high end drugs
our R&D spend as a whole has been lamentably low
even if you look at patents being given now, most from india go to MNC's using indian labs, not indian co's
the licence era didn't encourage R&D or any form of innovation, it was easier to TOT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 22:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2518
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
Lalmohan wrote:
we are good at mass production of mostly generic drugs, we are not yet strong leaders for high end drugs
our R&D spend as a whole has been lamentably low
even if you look at patents being given now, most from india go to MNC's using indian labs, not indian co's
the licence era didn't encourage R&D or any form of innovation, it was easier to TOT



it has not been lamentably low... there are plenty of Indian comapanies that can be called MNCs...We can and do produce "higher end drugs." Many Indian companies are in the process of launching there own new drugs.. New drugs launched today reflect the state of Industry that was 2 decades ago..As it takes 2 decades to launch new drugs..

research is the direct function of per capita income..Indian low income was due to the license raj . Thats where lies the culpability of Nehru/IG..things are improving rapidly now only because rules have improved..

Shivs hypothesis that even if nehru did not make the mess he made , we would not have caught up with the west by now is incorrect..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 May 2012 23:29 
Offline
Webmaster BR

Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31
Posts: 280
Hi Shiv,

Great topic.

One has to compare the LCA project against other benchmarks to appreciate what we have managed.
I mean our first indegenous car is the Indica!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 May 2012 03:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07
Posts: 4053
Lalmohan wrote:
we are good at mass production of mostly generic drugs, we are not yet strong leaders for high end drugs
our R&D spend as a whole has been lamentably low
even if you look at patents being given now, most from india go to MNC's using indian labs, not indian co's
the licence era didn't encourage R&D or any form of innovation, it was easier to TOT


The patent laws of India especially in pharma and biotech aren't very favorable for newer drugs. One cannot patent a Genetically modified micro-organism in India. One of the biggest drawbacks. Yes, it is in place to protect traditional practices (basmati, neem, turmeric etc), but if one wishes to enter high end drugs and other biotech processes, the IPR laws need to be rehashed in India..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 May 2012 04:06 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38910
Kapil wrote:
Hi Shiv,

Great topic.

One has to compare the LCA project against other benchmarks to appreciate what we have managed.
I mean our first indegenous car is the Indica!!!



And dont forget TELCO was doing design work of British Motors Land Rover for many years before launch of Indica.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 May 2012 06:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 24053
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
gakakkad wrote:
look at how we have grown post 90 .. Look at tata motors now...And look at the fat ambassador in the 80s..How can Nehru and IG not be culpable ? what explains the rapid growth post 90s and near stagnation from 50 -80s ?


The reason why I do not like to fix blame and "culpability" in any discussion is because that is the easy way out. Once we have fixed the blame, we think we know the answer and we think we know it all. By accepting that one or two individuals may have played a big role but may not have been 100% of the problem, I believe we have a better idea of learning the truth over a larger area of events and time. A medical example is diabetes. We were taught that it was all about insulin. But it is clearly known that the neuropathy (and other problems) do not go away despite good control. There are other factors that we don't know about. Possibly another unknown/currently undiscovered chemical factor or hormone play a role. By blaming insulin alone we are missing the big picture. By blaming Nehru/IG we are doing the same thing. I know that the innovative business communities in Gujarat were badly affected by Nehru/IG but the same can't be said to be true for all Indians all over India.These were the same communities who had funded Gandhi an the INC but ditched by Nehru.

The drug industry argument is interesting, an I will try and explain why that is so. India really did train a whole lot of chemists and chemical engineers between 1920 and 1950. (Once again I have some family insight into this). But compared to aircraft manufacture the manufacture of drugs is simple. Once you have the chemical formula, making 100s of tons of the drug becomes easy for any country with a particular level of industrial and technical skill.

What the West did was to impose "intellectual property" constraints on drug molecules. India did not accept such constraints and went ahead and caught up in many areas. It was easier to catch up. China on the other hand did exactly the same thing regarding aircraft. China ignored intellectual property constraints about aircraft manufacture. But they still haven't caught up.

The point I am trying to make is that saying "We can make cars, and drugs, why not aircraft?" is ignoring/being ignorant of the complexity of aircraft manufacture. There can be no comparison. I have already said this in the starting post of this thread.

We have clearly moved ahead rapidly in those areas where rapid progress can occur, but in in some areas that rapid progress cannot come because of a combination of difficult to master technology and the refusal of others to share because it is their life blood/survival that will drain away if they share the tech (intellectual property) with India or other countries. This is true of aircraft and engine tech.

This happens inside countries too in other areas. We know damn well that diamond cutting and polishing is an industry in which India is a world leader - with only a few competitors. But within India we also know that the industry is closely held by a particular community. This combination of varna (diamond trade) with a particular clan/jaat was what the British thought was "caste". They could not understand that a particular set of related families in India held the intellectual property for diamond trade and kept it within the family in the same way that Rolls Royce holds the intellectual property for some great engines and does not share it. Rolls Royce engines represent a clan who hold the intellectual property to those engines. It is not called caste because it is not held in one family. An industrial (or other) skill that is held within a clan is called "caste" which is a stupid misunderstanding of a unique combination of holding intellectual property in a family rather than in a company. India's diamond traders constitute a multinational company because they have a presence in India, Antwerp and other places. This has advantages and disadvantages, but it is the same intellectual property that is being held.

But I digress. In the 1980s a Malay Chinese colleague of mine in the UK proudly compared Malaysia with India after the news announced Malaysias new indigenous car, the Proton. He asked why India had made no cars. It would be really silly for India to compare with Malaysia for various reasons. But India's shining "car era" came about 15 years after that conversation I had. Anyone who wants to do a "mine is longer" can ask how many aircraft have come out of Malaysia, but let me stick to cars. Is India making all the components of cars? Are we making automatic transmission gearboxes? Are we making all the components for power steering? Are we making the circuits/chips that control various components like engine, brakes and other automatically controlled parts? It is probably cheaper to import them from Thailand and Malaysia where they are mass produced. These components are not being restricted for export. On the other hand, if you look at a complex aircraft like the LCA and discover that items like servo motors for the controls have to be imported - you have a crucial item that can be "sanctioned". So India's car industry chugs along not because we make every single component in India, but because imported components are not sanctioned. But LCA components can face sanctions, crippling the program.

That is why it becomes essential to have an internal capability to make almost everything that is high tech and can face sanctions. Paradoxically, the minute you develop the internal capacity to make something. sanctions are lifted and the same, previously sanctioned/restricted component is offered to India at prices lower than they are made in India because the companies that make them have already recovered their investment and can sell the parts cheap. This puts the Indian company that has taken the trouble to develop the restricted component out of business.

The point I want to make is that the "shudra" high tech engineering is deeply linked with vysya profit making and "caste/jaat" like control of intellectual property.

As an intellectual exercise imagine what would have to be done to peacefully destroy India's diamond traders monopoly? We do not want to do that - but it is an illustration of how technology and business interest can be used to kill all competition. This is how technology is used by developed nations to maintain monopolies while stopping others from getting in the act. And high tech aircraft and electronics are "cutting edge" where this competition is most intense. Drugs/cars/TVs etc do not make the cut in terms of protectionism and ruthlessness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 May 2012 07:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3580
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Lalmohan wrote:
we are good at mass production of mostly generic drugs, we are not yet strong leaders for high end drugs
our R&D spend as a whole has been lamentably low
even if you look at patents being given now, most from india go to MNC's using indian labs, not indian co's
the licence era didn't encourage R&D or any form of innovation, it was easier to TOT
This approach of generic drug masters is again a response to policy. IP protections in pharma at least until recently or even now was not product but process based. Now, policy was designed as such so that we could get those cheap drugs and still do playing harakiri with the "international" system. No apologies here and no easy answers too. Most of the world does harakiri with drug prices and effectively it is US consumers and business, who bear the lion's share of the costs as drug prices in the US are not controlled. China is a master at this with NO IP respect for ANYTHING.

The point in all this is at the end of the day it is policy and its objectives, which determines behavior of citizens and business entities. Did Nehru get it right, to control high end industrial policy because Indian business at that time would not have been able to deal with the high risk nature of investments and the general averseness to high risk by Indian businesses? While the rationale was there, it is hard to say what "may" have happened? A lot of it is "hindsight".

I am just glad that this attitude does nor pervade anymore. A case in point is something like Agni III. A conscious decision was made to outsource ALL of the manufacturing to 100+ companies. No doubt the core technologies for something like this was done by DRDO for private industry has no role to play in the complete product but through this process these private industries learn and through this learning some are even able to provide some good feedback and learning to DRDO, who use these learnings in subsequent versions.

I think, something akin to this type of process, where the eventual "tech" is then transferred to private hands in areas of more commercial interest than ballistic missiles, could have worked quite well for say "aircrafts".

I am back to my old saying. Disband the DRDO (minus the strategic parts and some core research, not possible by private industry) and let a dozen private DRDO avatars bloom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 May 2012 08:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2518
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
Quote:
The patent laws of India especially in pharma and biotech aren't very favorable for newer drugs. One cannot patent a Genetically modified micro-organism in India


that is bull crap being peddled by western pharma companies.. Presence or absence of patent laws don't propagate research . Go to ccmb hyderabad .you ll find all sorts of genetically modified micro-organisms.. American companies even want to patent genes.. You cant patent stuff that exists in nature...

The Indian patent laws pertaining to pharma are good . The American laws create monopolies or oligopolies , wipe out competition and make consumers pay gigantic prices .. And they don't help research.

If you look at non commercial university research in molecular biology and biotech.. It far surpasses the commercial research done by companies. Because companies are mainly interested in profits..The American patent laws enable companies to make such huge profits that they don't bother doing truly useful research .

The reason why new Indian drugs did not come till very recently is simple. India was a poor country ... Indian pharma companies were small.. There was cheap drugs which could control diabetes and hypertension of a lower income worker..That was more important than finding new drugs for curing non small cell lung cancer..

Now things are changing ...

these are some of the totally indigenous drugs which are in phase 3 trials presently... there are many more in the pipeline..

http://drneel.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/ ... rom-india/

trust me , we don't want American patent laws.. They ll never aid resarch. They ll only create monopolies and make healthcare un affordable..


ADDED LATER

Some of the products BIOCON IS WORKING ON PRESENTLY .. You can LOOK at the complexity of research they are doing.. CLEARLY they are not worried about the Indian patent laws...

http://www.biocon.com/biocon_research_discovery.asp


Last edited by gakakkad on 17 May 2012 08:52, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 May 2012 08:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16
Posts: 2518
Location: USA - A fully owned subsidiary of India Inc.
Quote:
The reason why I do not like to fix blame and "culpability" in any discussion is because that is the easy way out. Once we have fixed the blame, we think we know the answer and we think we know it all. By accepting that one or two individuals may have played a big role but may not have been 100% of the problem, I believe we have a better idea of learning the truth over a larger area of events and time.




Sir , IMHO we have everything needed to make top of the line aircrafts ,in India . We have the basic industrial base ... worlds largest supply of engineers ... 2 trillion economy that is rapidly growing.. better cooperation from abroad if at all it is needed...etc.. The reason why we are not yet succeeding is because we are not able to channelise those resources even yet..

The problems that you mentioned in the first post of this thread , (like lack of engineers , lack of industrial base etc) are long gone ...In a few years time we ll make more steel than unkil..Our chemical industry is one of the largest in the world. And extremely state of the art.

Our material science industry is continually increasing in science and improving in sophistication. We need to channelise these into killing machines.. It will never be easy . But it is very much doable.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brvarsh, GopiN, kvraghav, ManuJ, sankum, Victor and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group