Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Industrial development & the evolution of military aviation

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 17 May 2012 09:39

gakakkad wrote:
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.


Kakkadji pardon my saying this, but you are talking like a young person who thinks long ago is when his father was young. Nothing wrong in that, but it is not really that long ago. The "long gone" that you are talking about was when I was young and I am not dead yet and am not planning to be dead for a few decades. The US took nearly 100 years from the first US aeroplane to the first flight of the F-22. The first Indian aeroplane was in 1951. Do you believe that we can reach F-22 level by 2015, i.e 65 years after we flew the first Indian aircraft?

I predict that we will not be there. I would be happy to remain in disagreement with you on this issue.

The US and France had LCA level tech established by about 1985-1990. US, France, UK and Russia had Kaveri level engine tech in place by about 1970. We still have not had the guts to place that Kaveri in a plane.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby vina » 17 May 2012 10:10

shiv wrote:Kakkadji pardon my saying this, but you are talking like a young person who thinks long ago is when his father was young. Nothing wrong in that, but it is not really that long ago. The "long gone" that you are talking about was when I was young and I am not dead yet and am not planning to be dead for a few decades. The US took nearly 100 years from the first US aeroplane to the first flight of the F-22. The first Indian aeroplane was in 1951. Do you believe that we can reach F-22 level by 2015, i.e 65 years after we flew the first Indian aircraft?

I predict that we will not be there. I would be happy to remain in disagreement with you on this issue.


I have to agree with Gkakkad on this. This kind of learning experience does not scale linearly. Knowledge does leak out,get dispersed, and others piggy back. If you look at the game theory of this, any lame duck "Strat-e-jee guru" would talk of first mover advantages. There really is a true first mover advantages only if there are true entry barriers and an upward sloping learning curve.

In fact, in most situations in life it is the later entrants that have an advantage because they can learn from the mistakes and experiences of the earlier entrants and do a better job at lower cost and time lines.

Going back to your analogy, from 1906 to 1970 for the US to fly a FBW based plane took 70 years roughly. If that was the case we should be flying our first FBW based plane by 2020 or so! So yes, when the ADA director Subhramanyam says that we have caught up with the 30 year gap in design , he is right. We have. But as the industry as a whole in India done that, in many cases yes, in other cases no.

The US and France had LCA level tech established by about 1985-1990. US, France, UK and Russia had Kaveri level engine tech in place by about 1970. We still have not had the guts to place that Kaveri in a plane.

The problem with the Kaveri is that it is an all or nothing game. If you don't have the high temperature materials , you are not going to have a competitive engine. There is simply nothing that can be done about it.

It is fine, if every other part of the Kaveri can compare with the GE414 or whatever. But without that one part, it can never be truly so. This engine business is clearly a case where there are strong entry barriers (would you fly a plane with an engine from a Ding-Dong Chinese Clone maker or a Russian engine maker, or insist on a brand name with strong history and proven record like RR, GE, PW on the commercial plane you fly) , a very steep learning curve, closely guarded proprietary knowledge. So for a late entrant to leap frog and catch up is not easy and you do need to make the critical break throughs by yourself.

But here too, I would blame the IAF. Where were the IAF planning folks identifying engines as a critical strategic capability and bottleneck and pushing for a national project with multiple groups working on it since the early 80s and all out efforts to get the materials ?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 17 May 2012 10:32

vina wrote:Going back to your analogy, from 1906 to 1970 for the US to fly a FBW based plane took 70 years roughly. If that was the case we should be flying our first FBW based plane by 2020 or so! So yes, when the ADA director Subhramanyam says that we have caught up with the 30 year gap in design , he is right. We have. But as the industry as a whole in India done that, in many cases yes, in other cases no.

This is exactly what I am saying. Where do you detect a difference? What I am saying is that we are playing catch up, and we are catching up, but we have not yet caught up in all areas. Aviation tech is a particularly unique area which openly reveals the areas in which we have not yet caught up.

The fact that we can do something in X years from today does not mean that we did not face the hurdles I have described in the years up until today. Ignoring those hurdles and blaming personalities and imagining that India had tens of thousands of ready to be employed and experienced aerospace engineers who all went unused because of bad policy is spin that is not wholly accurate or honest. Bad policy is only part of the story. I am not suggesting that YOU made that spin. But that is the spin that is generally put to explain away the sloth from 1950 to 1990.

vina wrote:But here too, I would blame the IAF. Where were the IAF planning folks identifying engines as a critical strategic capability and bottleneck and pushing for a national project with multiple groups working on it since the early 80s and all out efforts to get the materials ?


I think the IAF and the Indian armed forces in general have never been involved in policy and their policy was a philosophy carried over from British days "You give us the weapons and we do the fighting". It is important to absorb the armed forces into policy making and let them understand the connection between arms, imports, local production and sanctions. I suspect that few in the Indian armed forces actually got into such issues till fairly recently - I am guessing about 20-25 years ago. ( Late 80s to 90s)

Only the Indian Navy is an exception here because they always knew that they were getting the least funds and made sure they got involved with Naval Architecture and Electrical engg departments in IIT and other places.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12502
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Lalmohan » 17 May 2012 14:24

an aircraft development programme sits on the pinnacle of a pyramid of science, technology, engineering, manufacturing, production, management sciences that takes decades to develop across a vast range of intellectual disciplines. the state has a role to play in some of it, the individual (working within an enabling framework) has another role to play. in india the enabling framework to spur innovation and investigation has not been well developed until recently. with hindsight, i think nehru was right to embark on the socialist five year plan model to start building the pyramid, even the license raj had some merits (incidentially taiwan used a license raj for petro chemicals but whilst protecting domestic industry, also forced it to match international prices - and so build in competitiveness). in india the license raj was abused and it could be easily gamed for profitability without investment in R&D and creating new products.
its the combination of state and private that we didn't get right, hopefully now we are able to move forward

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 17 May 2012 15:28

Lalmohan wrote:an aircraft development programme sits on the pinnacle of a pyramid of science, technology, engineering, manufacturing, production, management sciences that takes decades to develop across a vast range of intellectual disciplines. the state has a role to play in some of it, the individual (working within an enabling framework) has another role to play. in india the enabling framework to spur innovation and investigation has not been well developed until recently.


I have been searching for information on Engineering in India.

I started with the first three engineering colleges in India, Chennai, Rourkee and Kolkata. All started in the mid 1800s and all trained ONLY civil engineers until the 1930s. These were used for surveying, building canals etc. The first mechanical engineers started coming on stream in the mid-1930s. Electrical enng came later. Most of the few existing colleges got other courses only after independence. So you can imagine that by 1950 India had virtually no engineers other than a few civil, mech and the odd electrical. Of course a few were trained abroad. Dr VM Ghatge who went on to build the Kiran was trained in Aeronautical engg in Germany.

Let alone infrastructure, India did not even have the human resources for high tech engineering of that era) in the 1950-60 period. No wonder my peers out of IIT and other engg colleges who went abroad in the late 1970s were all described in Time magazine as "Brain drain". It was "trained brain drain"

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2387
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Yogi_G » 17 May 2012 22:25

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!!!


Kapil, I agree on the LCA comparison with benchmarks. But the Indica isnt the first indigenous car, it was the Tata Sierra from 1991.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48093
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby ramana » 17 May 2012 23:21

vina wrote:I have to agree with Gkakkad on this. This kind of learning experience does not scale linearly. Knowledge does leak out,get dispersed, and others piggy back. If you look at the game theory of this, any lame duck "Strat-e-jee guru" would talk of first mover advantages. There really is a true first mover advantages only if there are true entry barriers and an upward sloping learning curve.

In fact, in most situations in life it is the later entrants that have an advantage because they can learn from the mistakes and experiences of the earlier entrants and do a better job at lower cost and time lines.


and

....
The problem with the Kaveri is that it is an all or nothing game. If you don't have the high temperature materials , you are not going to have a competitive engine. There is simply nothing that can be done about it.

It is fine, if every other part of the Kaveri can compare with the GE414 or whatever. But without that one part, it can never be truly so. This engine business is clearly a case where there are strong entry barriers (would you fly a plane with an engine from a Ding-Dong Chinese Clone maker or a Russian engine maker, or insist on a brand name with strong history and proven record like RR, GE, PW on the commercial plane you fly) , a very steep learning curve, closely guarded proprietary knowledge. So for a late entrant to leap frog and catch up is not easy and you do need to make the critical break throughs by yourself.


Vina, Very good insight. Can you point us to good refs on these aspects? I think these issues have bitten Indian technology advances/progress in many areas which have similar constraints!

I think the big gap was the technology/idea evangelist not communicating the challenges till it gets drilled down to the decision makers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48093
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby ramana » 18 May 2012 01:15

Vina and Shiv, In the ASME paper on the heavy press program is this conclusion:

Credit for the development of this mammoth press must be given not only to the builder but to the United States Air Force, its Air Material Command and, in particular, to its Industrial Resources Division, for their leadership in the development of new manufacturing methods and in the exploration of new ground. They have not hesitated to move ahead when much of industry was satisfied with the available knowledge and know-how. They have urged, implored, and also pushed; they have
used candy, and sometimes the whip
-- but in all cases they were pointing towards more knowledge, better know-how, new methods, and deeper understanding.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby SaiK » 18 May 2012 03:57

Actually speaking when talk about the two special program for the raptor selection, the boeing yf-23 and lm 22s were both under total control of USAF, not just the facilities alone in the secret nevada dessert, but providing expertise and user experiences, and what exactly they want from the designers.

They were behind these companies.. when it comes to making it, there is a different level of participation.. and we do not see that from IA or IAF (changes are being done for LCA, and Arjun).. but we have history, and reasons.

What is for the future, and how we want to proceed.. is where we still draw blank[meaning nothing out that shows there is a big change].

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 18 May 2012 06:23

Vina's point about development being a non linear process is well taken. But it also suggests the application of some foresight and boldness among the top planners of India. For all the trouble the Kaveri has had - there is now an engine that can power something. The time has come to design that something and fly the damn thing - even if it is a UAV.

Jet engines have moved through so many iterations from Whittle's wheezer to today's blisks and composite blades. Even the wheezer was put on a plane and flown. The Kaveri simply must be put on a plane and flown.

The odd thing about aircraft development in India is that the Air Force actually has personnel dedicated to that and attached to industry. I must dig up that HF-24 article that showed how the plane had some amazing good qualities - not least being suited to Indian conditions with pilots sitting cool in the cockpit with its good airconditioning as opposed to the Russian maal that depend on latitude or altitude for cooling. But the pilot attached to test flying remained un influential in the broader scheme of things. The IAF had a job to do - at the borders. What happened deep inland in civilian factories was none of their concern. Add to that the fact that the Air Force already had experienced and skilled people with several wars under their belt by 1950, but at that time India had exactly one and a half aeronautical engineers to back up the air force. These are only pointers of a dysfunctional, unready, unsteady new "freed from slavery" nation that need recognition if we are to honestly dig up history and learn from it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 18 May 2012 09:33

The science and experimentation process of developing something new does not seem to get the level of general awareness that is required at least in a forum of this caliber. There is always a chance element in all technology development, and a lot of time is spent of trying to remove the chance element. This is why a head start of several decades is useful because the mistakes made in the past and the wrong choices made decades ago are eliminated if there is a continuous unbroken string of research and development in one place.

One of the biggest errors that I see is the assumption that some of these things can be handed to a Tata or a Mahindra and that the would achieve it in a jiffy. That is ignorance of the "step built upon previous step" progress in all of science where one bit of new knowledge impacts on a whole lot of other things and everything needs to be tweaked. A company with no previous expertise can rarely enter the game and suddenly excel in some of these areas

I had posted an informative if somewhat droning and difficult to understand video lecture from Aero India. You need not watch it all, I post a link from the same video starting at 14 min 26 seconds. And I have provided a transcript of the difficult to understand highly South Indian accented English so that people can follow what he says. And what he says is fundamental research and development gyan. This is about missile development from Luptonga's channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... VaI#t=868s
This is the kind of design cycle we go through. From the ASR we arrive at the mission and we establish the baseline. We look at the aerodynamics, propulsion, weight, trajectory. Then after that you find that somewhere something is not OK and then you change something - in our case when we initially put the actuators in the missile we found that the length had to increase. The moment the length was increased to accommodate these actuators - somewhere a local diameter had to be increased and because the drag had increased the propulsion was not adequate. The "T minus D" was not OK. So it goes in a kind of iterative cycle by the time you freeze your design. It takes considerable time."


These are the sorts of reasons why you cannot simply add a wing here or a new engine there and say "That is so simple". Like I said earlier, if you have a catastrophic failure you will never know what caused it. Science is difficult at the best of times and gets even more formidable if an ignorant, unaware and unsympathetic nation cannot understand even the basics of the issues involved in science and technology..

I veer slightly off topic to post a story about the American experience with the M-16 and how long it took them to figure out what was going wrong. When you have a casing jammed in a barrel it is not obvious why that casing got jammed and the involved process by which that occurred is explained well below. I must point out that many American lives were lost. Yet I see nothing but admiration for the company that made those rifles, Colt. If you cannot understand the technical details explained in near lay terms, you have company. Most Indians including 99% of our journos are with you. Americans understood "Jai Vigyan" from the time Atalji was a teenager.

http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowled ... ngton.html
From the very outset of its adoption, the M16 was plagued with troubles. Stoner had designed the original AR 15 with a very slow barrel twist rate of 1:14 which was literally a doubled edged sword. By using a slow twist barrel, the 55 grain bullet was only just stable in flight, producing a small degree of yaw. On impact, the bullet would immediately tumble and render a wide, incapacitating wound. This was initially considered a brilliant design premise but some rifles produced too much yaw and were very inaccurate at longer ranges. McNamara ordered that the twist rate be changed to 1:12 before final adoption of the rifle in 1964. This cured longer range accuracy problems but completely destroyed the stopping power of the 55 grain bullet which now poked needle holes through its victims. Nobody questioned the potential consequences of this move and ignorant of the facts, Ordnance brass continued to believe and promote the M193 as a highly effective cartridge.

Major troubles next appeared in 1965 when the M16 rifle was adopted on masse by the thousands of U.S soldiers entering Vietnam. Up to 50% of the rifles were jamming in the field and hundreds of U.S troops were killed while desperately trying to clear jammed chambers. Troops were further demoralized when neither the military brass or Colt would look into the problem seriously. Instead, troops were accused of not cleaning their rifles properly which had lead to powder fouling. The powder fouling was sighted as the reason why cases were not being extracted from the rifle’s chamber.

After continued complaints, both the Ordnance department and Colt representatives eventually began to look at the problem although still with a measure of apathy. The M16 then underwent some design alterations however, the cause of the jamming problem had still not been identified. A new model M16A1 now featured a chrome lined chamber and bore in an effort to produce smoother feeding. Other alterations were made to the M16, but without any true knowledge of the underlying problem, these added unnecessary weight to the rifle which was now only a shade lighter than the M14.

It was several years before the underlying cause of the M16’s jamming problem was properly indentified. Ordnance staff discovered that Stoner and ammunition manufacturers had initially tested the AR 15 using extruded (stick) powder but when the Vietnam conflict exploded, ammunition manufacturers adopted the more readily available ball powder. The ball powder produced a longer peak chamber pressure with dire effects. Normally upon firing, the cartridge should expand to seal the chamber (obturation), then contract and then be extracted. With ball powder, the case was still obturated due to the longer peak pressure. The ejector would then fail to extract the case, tearing through the case rim, leaving the obturated case behind.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby ArmenT » 18 May 2012 10:10

The ballisticarticles article you've posted has a couple of facts wrong. McNamara was the one who resisted putting in a chrome-lined chamber in the early M16s as well, despite insistence by the army to add it, because he believed in cutting costs and not adding it saved a few cents per rifle. It was also initially issued with no cleaning tools, which led to its early jamming problems. It also didn't take several years to figure out the powder issue, unless several = 2 (powder composition changed in 1964 without informing Colt (again, cost cutting decision because the ball powder was cheaper and could be purchased in more quantity than stick powder), rifle hit vietnam in 1965 and jamming issues sprung in the field, problem with powder identified by 1967). The new M16A1 had a chromed chamber and barrel and cleaning kits were issued with it. By early 1968, soldiers were generally happy with the M16A1's performance. The part about the M16 being only marginally lighter than the M14 is total BS. Even the M16A1 fully loaded with 30 round mag and sling weighs 7.06 lb., which is almost 2.8 lbs. (or over 25%) lighter than an empty M14. When fully loaded weights for both are compared, the difference in weights is approx. 40%, which can hardly be called marginal.

Incidentally, Colt didn't design the rifle actually -- they bought the production rights for the design from Armalite, a division of Fairchild aviation (the guys who built the A-10 Warthog). Nevertheless, the fault lies with Colt for not improving the design after they acquired it.
Last edited by ArmenT on 18 May 2012 11:47, edited 1 time in total.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby vina » 18 May 2012 10:42

shiv wrote:Vina's point about development being a non linear process is well taken. But it also suggests the application of some foresight and boldness among the top planners of India. For all the trouble the Kaveri has had - there is now an engine that can power something. The time has come to design that something and fly the damn thing - even if it is a UAV.

By all accounts, the Kaveri will be flown and used in the multiple programs coming up.

However, what is absolutely need is a focused national program like what Grand-Mullah Enqyoob Al Gas Turbine had advocated. A national focused program on gas turbines, multi disciplinary, starting with fundamental competency building on key areas (materials, aerodynamics, combustion, vibration and acoustics, controls) capabilities of which are fractured into multiple madrassas, academia, industry and manufacturing today into a national initiative like what the ADA did for LCA or ISRO does for space research and hope to get a family of engines out of it with probably from a one or two gas generators/cores that get developed.

Now who will push for such a thing ? It should be the IAF primarily! They should pester the MoD babu in EVERY meeting for such a thing for funding. And what do we have here ? Promises of "Snecma Kaveri JV being done in 3 months" , the reactions to the 3 months are here in BR in the Kaveri thread :rotfl: :rotfl: , why even after 12*3 months after that Harrumph, it has still not seen the light of the day!

But even if Snecma does give the kitchen sink in terms of tech and manufacturing and everything for the high temp materials, it would be foolish to not have a national program that researches next gen materials and engine technology! In fact, Snecma if it is giving you anything will make sure that they have the next gen already in some sort of maturity! If you dont do that, guess what in 25 years from now, you will be Engine Nood again.

The odd thing about aircraft development in India is that the Air Force actually has personnel dedicated to that and attached to industry. I must dig up that HF-24 article that showed how the plane had some amazing good qualities - not least being suited to Indian conditions with pilots sitting cool in the cockpit with its good airconditioning as opposed to the Russian maal that depend on latitude or altitude for cooling. But the pilot attached to test flying remained un influential in the broader scheme of things. The IAF had a job to do - at the borders. What happened deep inland in civilian factories was none of their concern. Add to that the fact that the Air Force already had experienced and skilled people with several wars under their belt by 1950, but at that time India had exactly one and a half aeronautical engineers to back up the air force. These are only pointers of a dysfunctional, unready, unsteady new "freed from slavery" nation that need recognition if we are to honestly dig up history and learn from it.


Shivji , we were not top drawer in terms of experience and numbers, but we were not zero either. We did always have competent people. For eg, I know (don't ask how, wont tell) of a dude , who grew up in Trivandrum with a house around the fort, went to "Koal lej to Gain Some Kno lej" wearing a dhoti in TVM, did his DSc in Physics at IISc under Dr C.V Raman, went to Caltech for Aero engg under Theodor Von Karmann (infact, ArmenT ullah's dad too had the same Guru I think, as did Prof Sathish Dhawan who headed IISc's Aero dept and was the head of ISRO). Said dude designed planes in the US, including the wing of a Hughes flying boat and came back to India when Pt Nehru called him back (same with Sathish Dhawan, Indira Gandhi called him back) and he set up one of the leading institutions dedicated to aerospace research in India and an important facility that continues to work exceedingly well to this day and has a road named after that facility ( now surrounded by IT/vity buildings and chi-chi pizza hut and Nilgiris and places with names like "Golden Enclave") . A bunch of dhoti clad Iyers in Madras had started a Madras Institute of Tech (MIT) that had an Aero program that had Kurt Tank teaching there , and a very illustrius alum called APJ Abdul Kalam and a whole series of folks who staffed ISRO and HAL later graduated from there first.

So, yes, we did have the talent there in place, maybe not in 1947 , but by the 50s/60s, largely yes and that was the reason we got the early start in Aerospace. What happened was later was the absolute criminal waste between the years mid 1960s to 1985 or so when that entire capability was left to atrophy and actually destroyed in many respects by a ham handed and misguided ideology and some sham "indigenization" of screw driver assembly of Russian designs. Given what we could have invested , we could never have done what USSR and USA did, but we still could have had a pretty competent aerospace industry with real products around if we had chosen our niches and areas carefully and tried get competitive around it , sort of like Italy, Sweden, Brazil etc. That is what gets my goat.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby vina » 18 May 2012 11:02

ramana wrote:In fact, in most situations in life it is the later entrants that have an advantage because they can learn from the mistakes and experiences of the earlier entrants and do a better job at lower cost and time lines.

Oh. The pioneering and best quoted work "Competitive Advantage" - Creating and Sustaining Superior performance - by Micheal Porter , a very well written, eminently readable book, with real world examples from multiple countries and industries , has all that.

But do pick up one of the later editions though. Initial versions did not have anything about entry barriers, without which you are basically looking at a commodity industry in the long term with just on cost leadership as the strategy, leading someone else I know to remark "What is the problem with Porter's Fiver Forces? It is Four Forces too many" :lol: :lol: . The later editions therefore talk about that.

That should be available in your local community /county library. You might want to borrow it from there as a typical skinflint Yindoo . But , it is worth buying for keeps. I bought a copy of it at Gangaram's here in Bangalore after R2I for some 300 Rs or so .

I think the big gap was the technology/idea evangelist not communicating the challenges till it gets drilled down to the decision makers.

Typically scientists were not very good at it , unless they were visionaries like Homi Babha , Sarabhai and others, who also had a keenly interested Pandit Nehru who was receptive. After Nehru, India really did not have anyone with that level of interest and commitment to science.
We went into a rut. The light dawned when Rajiv Gandhi came on and said,famously, we missed the Industrial Revolution , but we must NOT miss the 2nd industrial revolution in computers and communication.

The IT/Vity and all that of today in design, software and telecom and hardware and everything can be traced to that. It is to Rajiv Gandhi and of course Nehru and Indira's (she was tough as nails and ring fenced key scientific capabilities in strategic areas..space and nukes from any pressure and bulls*it from any Unkil and Aunty and Russia or anyone) credit, we at least have what we are today and that is pretty sizable and decent. It is not without reason, I am a Kangress supporter, despite all the flaws ,and everything of the Grand Old Party.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby svinayak » 18 May 2012 11:14

ramana wrote:
....
The problem with the Kaveri is that it is an all or nothing game. If you don't have the high temperature materials , you are not going to have a competitive engine. There is simply nothing that can be done about it.

It is fine, if every other part of the Kaveri can compare with the GE414 or whatever. But without that one part, it can never be truly so. This engine business is clearly a case where there are strong entry barriers (would you fly a plane with an engine from a Ding-Dong Chinese Clone maker or a Russian engine maker, or insist on a brand name with strong history and proven record like RR, GE, PW on the commercial plane you fly) , a very steep learning curve, closely guarded proprietary knowledge. So for a late entrant to leap frog and catch up is not easy and you do need to make the critical break throughs by yourself.

----------
Vina, Very good insight. Can you point us to good refs on these aspects? I think these issues have bitten Indian technology advances/progress in many areas which have similar constraints!

I think the big gap was the technology/idea evangelist not communicating the challenges till it gets drilled down to the decision makers.


Looks like PRC has all the required tech for the engine but they have not proceeded.
Either they are too clever or it is some psy ops

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby vina » 18 May 2012 11:25

Shiv wrote:The ball powder produced a longer peak chamber pressure with dire effects. Normally upon firing, the cartridge should expand to seal the chamber (obturation), then contract and then be extracted. With ball powder, the case was still obturated due to the longer peak pressure. The ejector would then fail to extract the case, tearing through the case rim, leaving the obturated case behind


This clearly illustrates what I wrote about how in most cases in real life, it is NOT the first mover, but the later ones who have the benefit of the learning curve and experience of others and can do a better job, more cheaply and quickly.

For eg, if you were designing a brand new rifle today, would you use a ball powder ammunition over stick and why or why not ? You know the answer because of the M-16 experience and more importantly because it is published and widely known .Today, either you will avoid such ammo, or make sure that you design in such a way that it works fine even with such ammo!

Now you know why the open western societies publish and widely discuss nearly everything. In the long run , it leads to greater innovation and better products leveraging the earlier learning and experiences of everyone as a whole. Contrast that with that of secretive totalitarian societies like the Soviets or Commie China. How many experiences do you know of theirs, even in non military fields.

Of course they wont publish everything and even if patented will have secret patents with not names, but just numbers and everything for critical items. For eg, if some insider in NASA/PW/GE /RR published absolutely critical and sensitive stuff that is proprietary and crucial such as process to make such materials, compositions, design etc, you can rest assured, that he will spend a long long time contemplating the ceiling of a high security prison. Now you know why it is difficult for followers to leap frog. Couple that with the fact that globally there are just 4 companies or so in the field that have all their proprietary knowledge locked in, specialized machines and processes to make them not available in the market for love or money (unlike say if you want to set up an oil refienery, you pay UHDE or someone and they will set up for you on a turnkey basis and teach your folks how to run it as well!) , so all in all, big barriers, in fact, lot more than building the airframe.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 18 May 2012 20:08

vina wrote:This clearly illustrates what I wrote about how in most cases in real life, it is NOT the first mover, but the later ones who have the benefit of the learning curve and experience of others and can do a better job, more cheaply and quickly.

My sense is that "technology denial" is all about letting the other guy (competitor) re-invent the wheel and be the first mover on his side. It keeps the experienced side ahead, but runs the risk of allowing the dedicated re-inventor of known technology come up with something truly innovative - like the Soviets did with the Mig 29 and Su-27. Typically tech deniers drop the price and tech barriers the minute they sense that the "first mover" in the other country has managed to reinvent something.


vina wrote:Now you know why the open western societies publish and widely discuss nearly everything. In the long run , it leads to greater innovation and better products leveraging the earlier learning and experiences of everyone as a whole. Contrast that with that of secretive totalitarian societies like the Soviets or Commie China. How many experiences do you know of theirs, even in non military fields.


This is true only to an extent. The publication stops at a point. But one of the questions that bothers me is, what if we were all Russian speakers with easy travel to Russia and not English speakers with easy access to the anglosphere? Perhaps we would feel the same way about the angloshpere? I have no proof - but all I know is that basic science and math were available in English translations for Indians in some seriously classic and enjoyable book. Scientific publications - I have no idea. Need to dig into this aspect.
Last edited by shiv on 18 May 2012 20:26, edited 1 time in total.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12502
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Lalmohan » 18 May 2012 20:15

re Mig 29, i believe the soviets had better aerodynamic r&d facilities using analogue means and excellent test tunnels - again a function of decades of learning curve progress. they appear to have been behind with flight control law modelling, and FBW technology since the US/Nato had the edge in electronics and digital technology

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 18 May 2012 20:30

Lalmohan wrote:re Mig 29, i believe the soviets had better aerodynamic r&d facilities using analogue means and excellent test tunnels - again a function of decades of learning curve progress. they appear to have been behind with flight control law modelling, and FBW technology since the US/Nato had the edge in electronics and digital technology


The point was it was doing all that it did minus FBW leaving the west totally gobsmacked when it appeared at the Paris air show.

In retrospect it appears to me that the Americans did their one-off-dead-end F-22 merely out of sheer jealousy to catch up and exceed the Russians and nothing else in a game where the Russians drew all the oohs and aahs ever since the MiG 29 and the Su 27 and their variants appeared.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby vina » 18 May 2012 20:50

This is true only to an extent. The publication stops at a point. But one of the questions that bothers me is, what if we were all Russian speakers with easy travel to Russia and not English speakers with easy access to the anglosphere?


The Russian engg philosophy is different. For eg, in the West vs Russia in space , it is like this. Once the Russians perfect some component/mechanism like an engine or something, they NEVER change it. It makes sense, any change you make will have unintended consequences that might not be fully testable , or even if it does, very difficult and expensive to test and so "If it ain't broke, dont fix it!" . The Americans on the other hand will keep fiddling with it and try making it better.

So while they might have internal knowledge mechanisms for sharing etc, I am not sure how open they were in letting the wider world know or care about sharing (other than basic science and math research, where they published well and got lots of Nobels).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48093
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby ramana » 18 May 2012 20:56

Shiv, To add to vina's post about status of Aerodynamics education in the 50s, most quoted research work is from Indians who were in US and Canada and some still in India. Many of them are IISc alumni. Even now Timoshenko's book of Theory of Elasticity has refs to their work.

Anecdote. My first job in massa was in stress analysis on nuke power plants. Some one wondered what would a fresh of the plane guy know about such things. So I took Roark's Formulas of Stress and Strain an showed a ref to an uncle's name! Shut them up for good. But then I did do great work becoming the lead engineer in 18 months some thing unheard in 30 years ago for desi.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby pragnya » 18 May 2012 21:07

ramana wrote:So I took Roark's Formulas of Stress and Strain an showed a ref to an uncle's name! Shut them up for good. But then I did do great work becoming the lead engineer in 18 months some thing unheard in 30 years ago for desi.


ramana sir, what would be your age?? :P

jokes aside, i am really enjoying this thread. great posts by shiv, vina, ramana, LM, ...

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby vina » 18 May 2012 21:32

ramana wrote: Even now Timoshenko's book of Theory of Elasticity has refs to their work.

Oh my gosh. I remember Tiomshenko's and Popov's books in Engg Mech /Strength of Materials from the Madrassa days. Timoshenko practically invented that entire thing on elasticity. I still remember the prof who taught it at the Madrassa(Krishna Iyer IIRC, who again was an authority on it himself).

That reminds me of the secretiveness of the USSR even during a life and death event like WWII where the Brits and Americans were sharing some extremely important things with each other. AA Ilyushin had discovered how important plasticity was to guns and shell design details here from googling , and that discovery had cut down very expensive heat treatment and material use in making guns, but I doubt the Russians shared it with anyone and that thing got published much later or somehow leaked out, don't remember the story. You probably know of it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48093
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby ramana » 18 May 2012 22:41

vina, In all the case:Nazis, US, FSU there was a will/desire to establish dominance and hence the goals were pursued single-minded. In India there is no such desire except in the missile field, hence we see a lot of aimless research and amateur dabbling in science with a me too or sixth country syndrome.* India per Sandy Gorgon is one country other than FSU that has labs and programs that mirror almostt every aspect that US pursues. Every program while others have some programs!


* India is the sixth country to achieve this blah, blah....

pragnya, People get what they want form here.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby SaiK » 18 May 2012 23:04

Do we know what effiency factor we achieved in Kaveri? when compared to similar tech and thrust rating. I am thinking it is not just materials alone, but the engineering aspects of blade design, the compression ratios, those stages, the air flow control aspects [actually this is something needs to be tested, how the vane controls work while turns etc.], igntion also play a big role for the right efficient burn, putting it all together in FADEC control system. [more test requried, since fuel-air mix needs to controlled at various altitudes]

This is a giant project, and we did not look at it as a giant project, but something like automobile engine tech stuff [in terms of gov inputs and management].

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2387
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Yogi_G » 18 May 2012 23:21

Even countries with many years of advanced research in a field still struggle to get the basics right at times. For example, the Soviets had to beg, borrow and steal to get the engine working for the Il-86 airliner. They even asked US for help with it. See the Bulava missile, the Russians already have everything they need to have it in production now, but botched up tests due to poor QC led to a lot of issues. The F-35 by Khan is another example.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby SaiK » 18 May 2012 23:25

yeah.. that is what I am saying, that I don't see a public opinion at large that understands these issues of complex engineering needs and wants. why would gtre accept a meagre budget to get FADEC done.. how in the world they could do something, when grumov kind of setup is not available in desh? how do you schedule a project like this with out looking at detail design aspects? big list of questions in terms of GtRE men, and MoD budgeting and schedules. IAF alone can't be blamed on this.. but, IAF should have clearly said about their T:W requirements long ago.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48093
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby ramana » 19 May 2012 04:06

Shiv and Vina, The intricacies of ball powder bite you in unexpected ways in critical applications. Only long experience helps in discerning the root cause. Ball powder burns more completely in same amount of time.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Singha » 19 May 2012 10:16

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012 ... he-ground/

Is China About to Get Its Military Jet Engine Program Off the Ground?

By Gabe Collins and Andrew Erickson

Tensions in the South China Sea—most recently with the Philippines—and Beijing’s unease about Washington’s renewed strategic focus on Asia are likely to strengthen calls from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for more modern fighters and strike aircraft. Russia has historically supplied the high performance military jet engines that power these craft. However, China’s defense industry is working hard to become capable of mass producing Chinese-made military jet engines in order to end dependence on Russia, give China maximum strategic flexibility, and begin to compete with Russian-made combat aircraft in export markets.


But how soon is China’s domestic jet engine effort likely to achieve lift-off?

China’s inability to domestically mass-produce modern high-performance jet engines has been a persistent Achilles heel of the Chinese military aerospace sector. Although Chinese military engineers have made progress is building jet engines, the effort continues to suffer from problems with standardization and a shortage of skilled workers, in addition to an inability to consistently produce high quality turbine blades. Indeed, a recent article in People’s Daily quotes Russian sources saying China can copy most parts of the AL-31 engines that power much of China’s J-10 and J-11 fighter fleets, but still must import turbine blades from Russia.
The problems have likely slowed development and production of the J-15, J-20, and other late-generation tactical aircraft and are now attracting political attention at the highest levels.

In late 2010, President Hu Jintao gave Gan Xiaohua, chief engineer of the Air Force Armament Research Institute, an award in recognition of his 26 years of work on China’s military jet engine programs. High-level leadership engagement is important to help break down bureaucratic barriers that Mr. Gan says have hindered China’s ability to take a more integrated approach to building a jet engine industrial base and production infrastructure.

Despite the increased attention and resources China has focused on the manufacturing of jet engines, Mr. Gan’s concerns appear to remain valid. Engine production facilities remain geographically divided between the cities of Shenyang (Liaoning Province), Xi’an (Shaanxi Province) and Anshun (Guizhou province). This organizational structure produces more micro-level, but less macro-level, “competition” than Western norms. In addition, publicly reported figures concerning numbers of Chinese personnel working on particular programs appear surprisingly low by Western standards—unless there are significant “off balance sheet” resources somewhere else.

With jet engines, “Western standards” would appear to remain relevant, as the world’s few top jet engine producers are all located in the U.S. and Western Europe (with Russia a distant second in quality). Lack of cooperation and coordination among the various branches of the PLA the jet engine end-users, appears to be a problem. Localized bargaining and patronage may produce duplication of effort, mismanagement of resources and increased time-to-market. Dispersing resources among competing research entities to the extent that China does may be counterproductive, particularly at this stage of development.

The Soviet defense industrial base, on which China’s was originally modeled, failed in precisely this area: Talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized “feudal” design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities. Lack of standardization and quality control rendered that system less than the sum of its parts, helping the U.S. to win the space race with its superior systems integration—as facilitated by such private corporations as AT&T.

One of China’s great theoretical advantages over earlier Soviet efforts—widespread access to and exploitation of foreign technology—has worked in other areas previously, but it may prove problematic in practice when developing and producing systems as complex and demanding as high performance jet engines.

Standardization and integration, essential for jet engine development, may suffer particularly from an ad hoc, eclectic approach to strategic technology development and acquisition. Without advanced quality management practices such as Six Sigma or Total Quality Management (TQM), sophisticated components and systems design and integration capabilities, and an organizational culture that ensures honest reporting of problems, China’s technology will not add up to high-performance engines in practice. And with jet engines, there is little if any room for error or substandard approaches.

China’s ability to resolve the domestic engine production problem matters because if China’s engine makers can attain the technical capability level that U.S. manufacturers had 20 years ago, China will be able to power its latest-generation fighter and strike aircraft with domestically-made engines.

The new J-20 strike fighter program (first unveiled during Defense Secretary Gates’ January 2011 visit to China), especially needs domestic engine development and production breakthroughs because Russia appears reluctant to sell the high-powered engines that could enable the J-20 to supercruise (sustain supersonic flight without using inefficient afterburners) and thereby match the performance of the world’s most modern fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 and Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA. Such developments would help cement China as a formidable regional air power and deserve close attention from policymakers.

However, evidence still suggests that China’s main military jet engine maker—Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC)—is struggling to maintain consistent quality control as it scales up production of the WS-10 Taihang turbofan that China hopes to use to power more of its fighter fleet. This issue is causing problems with reliability and keeping China’s tactical aircraft heavily reliant on imported Russian engines. China’s July 2011 order of 123 additional AL-31 jet engines supports the view that domestically-made engines still are not good enough to rely on as the mainstay to power Chinese fighters.

The latest jet engine import numbers suggest Chinese engines may now power roughly 20% of the country’s most modern fighters and strike aircraft as well as the JF-17 fighters it is exporting to Pakistan. That means at least 80% of China’s tactical aircraft fleet runs on Russian-made engines and will likely continue to rely substantially on imported Russian engines to support its tactical aircraft programs over the next two years. China’s high-performance jet engine programs are nearing takeoff but they, and China’s development of a more competitive precision manufacturing sector, appear to still have some additional runway ahead of them.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Singha » 19 May 2012 10:23

and as expected a horde of 50 cent drone indulge in a vicious catfight to throw mud on the authors in the comments section
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012 ... /comments/

Under estimating China wrote:
is a western tradition since General MacArthur. Nothing has changed. Whitemen remain whitemen just like their brain, no grey matters.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby vina » 19 May 2012 10:51

The Soviet defense industrial base, on which China’s was originally modeled, failed in precisely this area: Talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized “feudal” design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities. Lack of standardization and quality control rendered that system less than the sum of its parts, helping the U.S. to win the space race with its superior systems integration—as facilitated by such private corporations as AT&


The more I see stuff like this, it becomes very clear to me that we need to do things differently in our own way , with large private guys involved in each stage , and has to be an national program that leverages the competencies and skills fractured into multiple pieces across orgs and get two or three teams working on this, to get useable engines in a 20 year time frame.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 20 May 2012 19:13

vina wrote:
The Soviet defense industrial base, on which China’s was originally modeled, failed in precisely this area: Talented designers and technicians presided over balkanized “feudal” design bureaus and irregularly-linked production facilities. Lack of standardization and quality control rendered that system less than the sum of its parts, helping the U.S. to win the space race with its superior systems integration—as facilitated by such private corporations as AT&


The more I see stuff like this, it becomes very clear to me that we need to do things differently in our own way , with large private guys involved in each stage , and has to be an national program that leverages the competencies and skills fractured into multiple pieces across orgs and get two or three teams working on this, to get useable engines in a 20 year time frame.


I am sure this is correct for the future. But as I have been looking back at the state of things in India in the 1947 to 1960 period I come across several data points that only reinforce the impression of a highly backward nation compared with the industrial economies of the west. Steel production in India was just 1 million tons or so by 1947. Increases in steel output really took off in the 1960s and 70s. As regards textile machinery - which was about the only machinery India required for any industry, none was being produced in India in 1947. Part of the reason is that the availability of cheap of labour in India meant that the Brits were initially not interested in investing in machinery. Later they were only interested in exporting the machinery to Indians.

The most shrewd Indian industrialists of India could only grab textile production to an extent from the Brits. They could hardly set up industry, Jamshedji Tata set up the first steel mill and also started the IISc in Bangalore, but these were just fledgeling ventures that could not grow under the colonial economy and the war years between 1900 and 1947.

So the thought that occurs to me is that even if we had clever engineers capable of doing things, the chances are that their experiences in India in the 50s and 60s would have been that of my own peers in India in the 70s and 80s and even 90s - that is an environment where they had the skills but nothing happened for a multitude of inefficiencies. The reason I take time out to write this is that in terms of history 50 years in a flash - and events that occur in just 50 years are ignored as peanuts. It will be easy in a century from now to say that the 50 years from 1900 to 1950 were spent in wars and in the independence struggle. 1950 to 2000 were the post independence years when the country recovered from the missed industrial revolution and the colonial economy and that things started to change after 2000.

I believe this is the best opportunity we have to document the little details of history of industry in India and how it was related to the colonial days, the economy, the social situation, the government and external players. While critique of poor management by the socialist government is well known, very little is mentioned about what the government was grappling with in the post independence years.

Internal issues in India was the need to control and govern all parts of India. The period 1947 to 1949 were spent in the Kashmir and Hyderabad liberation wars. In 1952-1953 the Andhra agitation came to a head and the first language based state was formed. At the same time Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu had restarted an old anti-Hindu agitation and those issues went on until the national language formula was created in 1963. In the meantime - by 1956 Indians states based on language were being created.

In other words, by the time India flew its first HF 24 in 1961 - India had hardly progressed. The years 1947 to 1960 were "wasted years" in just consolidating India as one country. That date (1960) is so recent that many BRFites and most fathers and mothers of BRFites were born by then, so we are talking about living history.

The China war broke out by 1962 and this called for the urgent channelling of funds into arms imports that were possibly neglected till 1962. The embrace of the Russian bear who supplied us with the venerable MiG 21 started in 1962 and was prompted by the supply of free F-104 Starfighters with Sidewinders to Pakistan. That was probably the start of Indian's screwdriver aviation industry - ironically just after the HF-24 first flew. From 1962 to 1971 we saw the expansion of the "import and assemble" era of Indian military aviation - a long enough period for any innovators to move on and do other things. The 1970 to 1980 era was the real Indira Gandhi socialism years and that coincided with the end of the Vietnam war, a frustrated US with a chip on its shoulder wrt to the cold war. Nixon, Kissinger and the detente with China around the time India exploded its first nuke.

But in this international environment, with the USA really big and really angry - having lost one war in Vietnam and having had ally Pakistan mauled and desperately clawing to reach out to the Chinese - a communist regime - a hand of friendship from a USA where just 20 years earlier people could be arrested for being communists. Seriously, with an angry USA (for no fault of India's) a belligerent Pakistan and China all allying together did India have any choice other than going the socialist ally path? Or at least aligning itself with the socialist economy of the USSR? India too had to play a little great game of its own.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 20 May 2012 19:23

Just putting this down for the record - no information regarding its accuracy. From some forum
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... ic=13388.0
Since HAL keeps popping up in other discussions (eg: MBB designations), I thought that I'd put up my Hindustan Aircraft/Hindustan Aeronautics alphanumeric designations. As always, plenty of holes to fill! Presumably, most of those 'missing' designations were assigned to unbuilt projects.

HAL was formed 24 Dec 1940 but came under the control of the US Army from 1943-Aug 1945 before returning to the Indian government. In 1964, Hindustan Aircraft Limited was dissolved and merged with MiG-21 builder, Aeronautics India Ltd, to become Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. HAL designations, in their original form, has only been sporatically applied since the merger (most designs now having generic role acronyms acting as designations).

HAL designations consist of H for Hindustan followed by role letters (the exception being HAL's very first product, the G-1 troop glider). Designations evolve over time - eg: HT for military Trainer is expanded to distinquish between piston (HPT) and turboprop (HTT) power.

HAL alphanumeric designations were only partially sequential -- eg: HF-24 Marut predates the
HJT-16 Kiran. In other cases, numbers are kept for convenience only to be changed later for marketing purposes (eg: the HF-24 Mk III project - which was only Marut-based - becomes the non-sequential HF-73 in 1973). Or, types numbers change for no obvious reason (eg: when the HPT-32 Deepak turboprop conversion becomes the HTT-34 rather than a 'HTT-32').

Know HAL designation role prefix letters are as follows"

G === Glider
HA == Hindustan Argicultural
HAC = Hindustan [Airliner, Commerical?; Airline Commuter?]
HCP = Hindustan [Cargo, Passenger?; Commerical, Passenger?]
HF == Hindustan Fighter
HSS = Hindustan Supersonic Strike
HT == Hindustan Trainer
HJT = Hindustan Jet Trainer
HPT = Hindustan Piston Trainer
HTT = Hindustan Turbo Trainer
HUL = Hindustan Utility Light
HAOP = Hindustan Aerial Observation Post



HAL (Hindustan Aircraft Limited) Designations 1940-1964 (+ Later H' Designations)

[??] -- 1940, VTOL aircraft patent by HAL engineer, Ajit Maitra

G-1 -- Aug 1941 1-seat troop glider, one prototype built

HT-2 -- 1951 military 2-seat primary trainer, 1 x 155 hp Cirrus Major III
- HT-2 prototype: 1 x 145 hp deHavilland Gipsy Major, reg'd VT-DFW
- HT-2 production: 160 for Indian Air Force, 12 for Ghanan AF
- HT-2L: 1980s conv. (eg: IX494) to 160 hp Lycoming AEIO-320-D2B
-- Design by VM Ghatge, mockup built 1949, first metal cut Feb 1950

Hxx-3 - [??]
Hxx-4 - [??]
Hxx-5 - [??]
Hxx-6 - [??]
Hxx-7 - [??]
Hxx-8 - [??]
Hxx-9 - [??]

HT-10 -- [Project] 1954 side-by-side advanced trainer, 1050 hp P&W R-1830
- HT-10 prototype construction begun 1954, abandoned 1958 [?]
-- HT-10 design begun 1948, mockup and wind tunnel models complete by 1952
-- Specs: span 44', length 33', gross weight 9500 lbs, max speed 230 mph

HT-11 -- [Project] 195? basic trainer similar in layout to advanced HT-10
- HT-11: presumably intended as a repl. for licenced Percival Prentice

Hxx-12 - [??]
Hxx-13 - [??]
Hxx-14 - [??]
Hxx-15 - [??]

HJT-16 - Kiran side-by-side basic/intermediate jet trainer for the IAF
-- Orig. engine poss: Viper, Turbomeca (or Blackburn-Turbomeca), or RB.145
- Kiran Mk I: 1964 jet trainer, 1 x 2,500 lb.st RR Viper, 118 built
- Kiran Mk IA: 'Armed Kiran', 2 x wing pylons, RR Viper, 72 built
- Kiran Mk II prototype: 1976 as per Mk IA except RR Orpheus & fixed guns
- Kiran Mk II production: 1985, 4200 lb.st Orpheus, 4 x pylons, 61 built

HJT-17 - Parallel development with Kiran as a possible alternative. Mockup built
-- HAL Chief Designer VM Ghatge considered staggered seating, this may be HJT-17

Hxx-18 - [??]
Hxx-19 - [??]
Hxx-20 - [??]
Hxx-21 - [??]
Hxx-22 - [??]
Hxx-23 - [??]

HF-24 - Marut, 1961 twin-engined jet fighter (by Kurt Tank/MV Ghatge), 147 built
- HF-24 Glider: April 1959 1-to-1 scale plywood glider for flight trials
-- NB: HF-24 glider many have been desig. in that missing '18-'23 sequence
- HF-24 as planned: 2 x 8170 lb.st afterburning RR Orpheus BOr 12 engines
-- Orpheus BOr 12 cancelled, alt. engines considered: RD-9F and Egyptian E-300
- HF-24 prototype: June 1961 X-24 (orig. HF-001, later BR462) 2 x Orpheus Mk.703
- HF-24 Mk I: single-seat ground attack fighter, 2 x unreheated RR Orpheus Mk.703
-- HF-24 Mk I 1963 pre-production: 18 aircraft order for IAF in 1962
-- HF-24 Mk I 1964 production aircraft: 62 ordered for IAF
- HF-24 Mk I BX: 1966 engine test airframe able to take RR Orpheus or E-300
-- NB: HF-24 Mk I BX was a conversion of one of the early pre-production Mk Is
- HF-24 Mk IT: 2-seat trainer, 1970 prototype, rocket removed to allow second seat
-- aka 'Marut Trainer', design by SC Das (after Tank leaves), 18 HF-24 Mk IT built
- HF-24 Mk 1A: 3rd pre-production a/c, 2 x 7520 lb.st afterburning RR Orpheus 703
- HF-24 Mk 1R: 1970, Orpheus afterburner dev't trials a/c, clamshell canopies
- HF-24 Mk II: sometimes applied to prototype Mk IRs with afterburning Orpheus
-- NB: confusion exists between HF-24 Mk II and Mk III/HF-73 projects, to wit:
-- Mk II/Mk III engines: 2 x Adour or 6580 lb.st RR/MAN Turbo RB.153 turbofans
- HF-24 Mk III: [Project] see HF-73 project below
-- Mk III to "have maximum [HF-24] hardware commonality", in service 1981-82

HF-25 - [Project] single-engined HF-24 strike fighter derivative
-- Duplicate designation number, see HCP-25 utility aircraft below

HCP-25 - 1960 Norseman-like 10-pax aircraft, by V.M. Ghatage, prototype only
- [Project] turboprop-powered HCP-25 planned but not proceeded with
-- NB: pax + utility, then-concept described in 1958 Flight as "2-ton truck"
-- aka LAS (Logistic Air Support), 'HCP-125' is probably a typo for HCP-25
-- http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... pic,3161.0
-- http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... pic=3673.0

HUL-26 - Pushpak 2-seat lightplane (infl. by Aeronca?), 1 x 85 hp Continental 4-cyl
- HUL-26 Pushpak 1st prototype: VT-XAA completed Sept 1958, wooden wings
- HUL-26 Pushpak 2nd prototype/production: metal spar, pressed aluminum ribs
-- [Project] Pushpak deriv. with HAL PE-90H 90 hp hoizontally-opposed engine

HAOP-27 - Krishak 4-seat Pushpak devel., 1 x 90 hp Continental 4-cyl
-- HAOP-27 used as liaison/observation aircraft by IAF

Hx-28 - [??]
Hx-29 - [??]
Hx-30 - [??]

HA-31 - Basant agricultural aircraft, 1 x 400 hp Lycoming IO-720-C1B
- HA-31 Mk I: prototype, Basant design begun 1968
- HA-31 Mk II: 1972, revised cockpit location, 20 pre-production a/c
- HA-31 turboprop: [Project] 8 ordered for Indian Min. of Agriculture, cancelled
-- NB: 'HAL-31' for Basant Mk I may simply be a typo

HPT-32 - Deepak, 1977 military ab-initio trainer (HT-2 repl.), 120 built
- HPT-32: 1 x 260 hp Lycoming AEO-540-D4B5, IAF deliv 1984-1995
- HTT-34: turboprop deriv. (see below)

HAC-33 - [Project] 1973, transport, 2 x 1412 shp Astazou XX turboprops
- HAC-33: 20-pax pressurized feeder airliner (no industry interest)
-- HAC-33 wind tunnel model built and tested, funding not approved
- HAC-33: 24-seat/12 litter military transport, cancelled (no mil. interest)
-- 1974, Small Passenger Aircraft Group studied scaled-down version of HAC-33

HTT-34 - turboprop deriv of HPT-32, X2335 converted to Allison turboprop
HTT-34: 420shp Allison 250-B17D, HTP-32 prototype conv. flown 1984

HTT-35 - [Project] 199?, turboprop trainer; tandem cockpit with ind. canopies
- HTT-35: powrplant - 1100 shp Garrett TPE331-12D or 950 shp P&WC PT6A-62
-- For IAF Air Staff Target 208, to replace HPT-32 and HJT-16 from late '90s

HJT-36 - Sitara, 2003 subsonic jet trainer, direct HJT-16 Kiran replacement
- HJT-36 prototypes, 1 x 14.12 kN SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-H-20
-- 2008, 1st prototype, PT-1, re-engined with NPO Saturn AL-55I
- HJT-36 production, 1 x 16.9 kN NPO Saturn AL-55I turbofans
-- aka IJT (Intermediate Jet Trainer), design work begun 1997

HTT-38 - [Project] 1998 turboprop trainer, modernized version of HTT-34 conv.

HJT-39 - [Project] advanced jet trainer, 2 x 2200 kg NPO Saturn AL-55
-- aka CAT (Combat Attack Trainer), evolved from single-engined HJT-36
-- http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... ic,11371.0

HTT-40 - [Project] new turboprop trainer design to replace HPT-32
-- HAL looking for partners so HTT-40 likely based on existing tandem trainer
-- On lists: G-120TP, KT-1, M-311, PC-7, PC-21, PZL-130 Orlik, T-6C, Tucano
-- Short listed: KT-1, PC-7 (lowest bidder, June 2011), T-6C Texan II

Hxx-41 - [??] ...

HF-73 - [Project] strike fighter follow-on to the indigenous HF-24 Marut
- HF-24 Mk III: original designation for HF-73 strike fighter project
-- HF-24 Mk III to "have maximum [HF-24] hardware commonality", 1981-82
- HSS-73: 'Hindustan Supersonic Strike' aircraft less derived from Marut
- HF-73: redesignated HSS-73 various configurations, work aborted 1975
-- HF-73 concepts designed with assistance of Germany's MBB
-- HF-73 final config: single-seat, Double tail, 10 t wt., RB199 engines

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Pranav » 21 May 2012 15:05

How does the industrialization of India post-1947 compare with the industrialization of Japan in the pre-WW2 era.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12502
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Lalmohan » 21 May 2012 15:15

the japanese drive began i think with the desire to build a competitive navy. they had initial advice from the Royal Navy, which they then absorbed, and built a strong fleet that defeated the russian imperial fleet during ww1. in the inter war years, they undertook large scale consumer manufacturing - with the image of high volume, low quality to flood export markets. they used (I think) a mix of state and private enterprise, with most of the major corporations we know today being involved in some way. the lack of raw materials possibly guided them more towards finished goods, but their heavy industry was quite significant

post ww2 their industrial recovery came from turning their devastated heavy industries towards supporting the american war effort in korea (mostly steel and automotive) and then onto consumer electronics

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 21 May 2012 16:49

Pranav wrote:How does the industrialization of India post-1947 compare with the industrialization of Japan in the pre-WW2 era.


During WW 2 (For Japan that was 1941-45) Japan produced 11,000 (Eleven thousand onlee) Zero fighter aircraft. That requires huge, multiple parallel production lines and a skilled workforce to match. Japan had the industrial capacity to produce 10,000 aircraft per year in 1941. India has not produced 11,000 aircraft of any type from 1947 to 2012.

India was able to produce 1 million tons of steel a year in 1947. Japan was producing 8 million tons a year in 1941.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Pranav » 21 May 2012 18:22

shiv wrote:
Pranav wrote:How does the industrialization of India post-1947 compare with the industrialization of Japan in the pre-WW2 era.


During WW 2 (For Japan that was 1941-45) Japan produced 11,000 (Eleven thousand onlee) Zero fighter aircraft. That requires huge, multiple parallel production lines and a skilled workforce to match. Japan had the industrial capacity to produce 10,000 aircraft per year in 1941. India has not produced 11,000 aircraft of any type from 1947 to 2012.

India was able to produce 1 million tons of steel a year in 1947. Japan was producing 8 million tons a year in 1941.


True ...

What I was wondering about is whether their absorption of industrial technologies, prior to WW2, was faster than India's progress post-1947.

If so, then what are the factors involved.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 21 May 2012 18:29

Pranav wrote:What I was wondering about is whether their absorption of industrial technologies, prior to WW2, was faster than India's progress post-1947.

If so, then what are the factors involved.


No. Japan's industrial revolution started around 1850ish - they made it a point to absorb tech from the Dutch.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby Pranav » 21 May 2012 18:55

Re Japan:

There were at least two reasons for the speed of Japan's modernization: the employment of more than 3,000 foreign experts (called o-yatoi gaikokujin or 'hired foreigners') in a variety of specialist fields such as teaching English, science, engineering, the army and navy, among others; and the dispatch of many Japanese students overseas to Europe and America, based on the fifth and last article of the Charter Oath of 1868: 'Knowledge shall be sought throughout the world so as to strengthen the foundations of Imperial rule.' This process of modernization was closely monitored and heavily subsidized by the Meiji government, enhancing the power of the great zaibatsu firms such as Mitsui and Mitsubishi.

Hand in hand, the zaibatsu and government guided the nation, borrowing technology from the West. Japan gradually took control of much of Asia's market for manufactured goods, beginning with textiles. The economic structure became very mercantilistic, importing raw materials and exporting finished products—a reflection of Japan's relative poverty in raw materials.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period#Economy


The industrial revolution began about 1870 as Meiji period leaders decided to catch up with the West. The government built railroads, improved roads, and inaugurated a land reform program to prepare the country for further development. It inaugurated a new Western-based education system for all young people, sent thousands of students to the United States and Europe, and hired more than 3,000 Westerners to teach modern science, mathematics, technology, and foreign languages in Japan (O-yatoi gaikokujin).

In 1871 a group of Japanese politicians known as the Iwakura Mission toured Europe and the USA to learn western ways. The result was a deliberate state led industrialisation policy to enable Japan to quickly catch up. The Bank of Japan, founded in 1877, used taxes to fund model steel and textile factories. Education was expanded and Japanese students were sent to study in the west.

Modern industry first appeared in textiles, including cotton and especially silk, which was based in home workshops in rural areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial ... tion#Japan


Another nation that India should compared with, in terms of speed of technology absorption, is South Korea.

Have Indian policies been focused and aggressive enough?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Industrial development & the evolution of military aviat

Postby shiv » 21 May 2012 19:01

OK Check out thse facts folks. Just digging up infor about scientists under whom current/recent pograms are reaching fruition

1. Dr Kasturirangan - former chief of ISRO

Born 1940.

Bachelor of Science with Honours from Ramnarain Ruia College, Matunga (Mumbai), Master of Science degrees in Physics from Bombay University and Ph.D. (Astronomy & Astrophysics), 1971 from Physical Research Laboratory, Gujarat University

2. Dr. Avinash Chander (Agni missiles)
http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20120601291003600.htm

Probably born around 1950

Chander joined the DRDO in 1972 after graduating in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. He obtained his M.S. in Spatial Information Technology from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad.

3. Tessy "Agniputri" Thomas
Born 1964
"I happened to be picked as one of 10 youngsters from around the country for a DRDO programme in 1985,"

It appears to me that the generation of Indians born between 1940 and 1960 are now hitting the tech jackpot. This generation involved people both younger and older than me, so that brings me to the question of what engineers of my father's generation were doing. What about the people who are in their 80s now or dead now?

This question has bugged me for a few days and I can only answer it using personal anecdotes which I will put down for the record. I will call all the engineers I am talking about as "uncles". All were born between 1915 and 1930. Most are dead now and I knew all of them personally which is why I can call them "uncle" and say what they did. All were engineers trained in India or the US in the 1940s to 1950s.

1. Uncle 1: Chemical engineer. Worked in Birla Soda ash plant 1950s. Later in pharmaceutical chemical manufacture in a government firm. retired in 70s and entered private sector.

2. Uncle 2: mechanical Engineer. Worked in private sector all his life - Kirloskar Oil Engines.

3. Uncle 3 Electrical. Worked for Indian Telephone Industries all his life making low tech early gen telephone exchanges called "crossbar" or "Strowger" or some such thing. And telephones

4. Uncle 4: Electrical. Worked in BEL - making some defence related stuff. May have been radars. Don't know.

5. Uncle 5: Finance man. Initially Air India. Then Bajaj tempo all his life

6. Uncle 6 - Engineer ?field. Worked for AIR all his life

7. Uncle 7 - Engineer worked for AIR all his life

8. Unlce 8: Engineer. Bhilai steel plant

9. Uncle 9: Engineer. ONGC till retirement (still alive)

10. Uncle 10: Engineer. Indian navy, ONGC and then Birlas

11. Uncle 11: civil engineer. PWD dept. Retired as chief engineer, Supervised building of several existing dams

12. Uncle 12: Kirloskar Electric all his life

13. Uncle 13: Chemist/Chem engr - CFTRI food technology Mysore

The point of making this list is to show that the government used to be the biggest available employer for these engineers of my father's generation (for the generation born 1915 to 1930) and they were being employed in all the areas that were being developed in India. Steel, transport, power, communication, broadcasting and pharma. There were only a few private industries and they were all the same names - Birla, Tata, Bajaj, Mahindra, Kirloskar. These companies were into auto, steel and cement mainly. All connected with early development of india.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karan M and 45 guests