Indian Military Helicopters

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2017 10:58

Everything "made in India" seems to be more expensive that if bought from abroad! Examine any def. deal involving a firang system,from aircraft to Scorpenes,MBTs,etc. Since a brand new factory for the LUH is being set up,surely these costs will have to be met,but can be so designed that even larger helos including the under-devc MH,LCHs,etc.,can be manufactured here. WE will need anywhere from 500-1000 helos in the next decade and just one facility at BLR and the new one will be hard put to meet targets.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 23 May 2017 14:21

Livefist
@livefist
Just in: 2nd prototype of HAL's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) with modified tail boom lifted off on first flight today.
10:32 AM - 23 May 2017

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 23 May 2017 16:11

Media Releases by HAL
Light Utility Helicopter (PT-2) Makes Maiden Flight

The LUH PT2 has modified tail boom and incorporates improvements based on feedback from testing of LUH PT1.

HAL plans to carry out further flight testing on PT1 & PT2 in the months ahead to freeze the helicopter configuration by end of this year.

http://www.hal-india.com/Light%20Utilit ... ht/ND__197

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 May 2017 16:41

Kamov needs to given the boot. same old tricks being played even on what is a marginal acquisition.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 23 May 2017 18:21

Ka-226 will prove to be underpowered overweight maintenance heavy machines. Just order a few extra ALH till LUH production comes on stream.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 May 2017 19:33

So why are we buying an imported product and faking it as a Make In India when the genuine Make In India is available - and unlike a brochure ad (Mig-35) is actually flying?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2017 20:23

Philip wrote:Everything "made in India" seems to be more expensive that if bought from abroad! Examine any def. deal involving a firang system, from aircraft to Scorpenes, MBTs,etc. Since a brand new factory for the LUH is being set up,surely these costs will have to be met,but can be so designed that even larger helos including the under-devc MH,LCHs,etc.,can be manufactured here. WE will need anywhere from 500-1000 helos in the next decade and just one facility at BLR and the new one will be hard put to meet targets.

Because the accounting geniuses include cost of factory and infrastructure in the price of the helicopters.
If what you want is done the cost will go up even more!!!

Am sure they will have some excess capacity or annexes to be added later.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2017 20:28

Singha wrote:Kamov needs to given the boot. same old tricks being played even on what is a marginal acquisition.

Did you read the article? The cost of the new factory and training manpower is being added to the price of the helicopters by 'sources' and India Toady a known baiter is publishing the story.
The real deal is they want it to be an all import and not a #MakeInIndia.
Rot is in the Source.

BTW, the old helicopter factory building is circa 1974. It was designed by RECW Structural Eng. professor.
So need to update a new factory anyway.

NaMo is insisting on a private player to be part of the new helicopter factory.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 May 2017 21:14

Ramana, a better deal would be to get a private player to work on the LUH perhaps? also, when cost comparisons are made of Arjuns, Dhruv, LCA, LCH etc, they should then add the cost of the overhead too. The T-90 probably required investment for screwIndia (screwdriver) giri but that cost is not revealed.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 May 2017 21:22

ashishvikas wrote:...

Sources said there seemed to be a minor issue over the interpretation of the clauses on the transfer of technology for the Kamov choppers as during one of the meetings,....

http://m.indiatoday.in/story/kamov-226- ... 60527.html

Yah!. We think we are getting the fabled 'ToT'/Deep License. They think it's a clearance sale

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 May 2017 21:42

More like a flipkart paytm type bailout deal

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 May 2017 00:04

India would do well to understand that you cannot buy a nations' friendship. Nations are friends due to either shared values and goals or shared interests and threats. So pacifying Roos by purchasing junk weapons like this make India weak and Roos and their "consultants" strong. If Roos wants Pakis and Cheenis as their bhai then we should tlet that happen and prepare for it.

If the roosi system has something that India cannot develop or produce, then buy that Tech. Why should India buy the junk system that will come with - no after sales service, engines that will break down before they are supposed to and spares will not be available leading to cannibalization of flying platforms and reducing the capabilities even further. If India will complain, the roosies will simply blame it on - dirty Indian fuels or poor pilot quality.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 May 2017 00:15

^^^
NaMo govt knows that and hence is setting up dual lines for aircraft and helicopters. however MoD sources for the IAF is not involved are trying to undercut by inflating the price.
Which accounting rule says cost of new aircraft factory and training people to make the aircraft should be added to the cost of the helicopters?

Such stuff especially with 'sources' should be suspect.
The IT reporter should have asked what is the price of the facility and the training costs/

But he is on an agenda too to say #MII is a fail.

Vivek No one will sell you avante garde stuff.
You buy what you need.

They need lift helicopters.

Can HAL make those if an order is placed tomorrow.
NO.
Then what is this bokwas backstabbing?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 24 May 2017 00:25

The ALH is anyways replacing Utility Chetak in IAF/IN/IA and the LUH is mostly a Cheetah replacement. Since Cheetah is still under manufacture and even gifted for demanding situations in Afghanistan, we can wait for the 2-3 years max it takes to operationalise LUH. The Ka-226 is entirely avoidable and we're done subsidising the Russians.

With ALH, LCH, LUH and then IMRH, the government needs to massively invest in manufacture since pedigree is established. The time is now and helicopters have proven their worth in peace and war to equip services with more.

It's good Make in India, great for employment generation.

Question to Raghu K / Indranil / Jay S - has HAL redesigned the gearbox to make use of higher thrust of Shakti/Ardiden at Sea Level? This will enable the new 16 naval version to carry heavier ASW payload.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 May 2017 07:25

ramana wrote:^^^
Which accounting rule says cost of new aircraft factory and training people to make the aircraft should be added to the cost of the helicopters?

Well accounting policies allow you to depreciate capital investment thereby turning some taxable income into a windfall revenue. Therefore apples to apples should be compared. Indian and roosi!

Vivek No one will sell you avante garde stuff.
You buy what you need.

They need lift helicopters.

Can HAL make those if an order is placed tomorrow.
NO.

How long will it take to produce the first Kamov?

If India invests seriously in HAL and public private partnerships, then true MII like LCA/Arjun/Vik/Nirbhaya/Kolkata Class Destroyers/Shivaliks etx will be produced in larger numbers and change the economic face of India. Invest Billions (Cap

in India and reap the benefits. Invest billions in roos and finance weapon platforms for Cheen and others that have the money. Why make it easier for the opposition?

Then what is this bokwas backstabbing?

I have been consistent in opposing the knee jerk acquisitions that by now are the hall marks of IAF/IA. India forgot the lessons of the Marut. Invest in local development. Change the industrial base of India. Follow ISRO's ecample.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2017 07:48

Vivek K wrote:
If India invests seriously in HAL and public private partnerships,

How about private-private like Reliance-Gripen to provide an alternative to our PSUs and let private players acquire the scredrivergiri skills that PSUs hold close to their chests today?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 May 2017 07:56

tsarkar wrote:Question to Raghu K / Indranil / Jay S - has HAL redesigned the gearbox to make use of higher thrust of Shakti/Ardiden at Sea Level? This will enable the new 16 naval version to carry heavier ASW payload.

This is my biggest question about Dhruv too. We should have Dhruv's optimized for high altitudes, and another one optimized for maximum load at sea level. Ditto, with LCH.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 May 2017 08:44

shiv wrote: How about private-private like Reliance-Gripen to provide an alternative to our PSUs and let private players acquire the scredrivergiri skills that PSUs hold close to their chests today?

Screw driver giri has screwed India. The Gripen should not be supported because of the tedious, non-productive TOT process and Sweden's ambiguous policies. Why help Swedish industry and give awy jobs to Sweden? What will be the cost of MLU's in the future? How about integrating future Indian engines/weapon/tyres on the aircraft.

Why allow even PSUs to do screw giri. Make the LCA in numbers and let MKI be the last screwed up job.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2017 09:00

Vivek K wrote:
Screw driver giri has screwed India.

I contest this frequently made assertion because it is not true. Only scredrivergiri creates familiarity with technology. Contempt for scredrivergiri only evokes delusional dreams and those Indians who do not do screwdrivergiri have nothing to show in tech./engineering contribution to the nation (or to any other nation for that matter). The few innovations we have in India come from screwdrivergiri firms - not from de novo design houses.

Ironically ALL denovo design houses have to be experts at screwdrivergiri first

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 24 May 2017 10:26

shiv wrote:
Vivek K wrote:
Screw driver giri has screwed India.
I contest this frequently made assertion because it is not true. Only scredrivergiri creates familiarity with technology. Contempt for scredrivergiri only evokes delusional dreams and those Indians who do not do screwdrivergiri have nothing to show in tech./engineering contribution to the nation (or to any other nation for that matter). The few innovations we have in India come from screwdrivergiri firms - not from de novo design houses.

Ironically ALL denovo design houses have to be experts at screwdrivergiri first

Vivek, the problem isn't screwdrivering but our inability to follow up after screwdrivering.

Once we gain experience, and start manufacturing sub-components (and we're very good at that), we need to design & build around what we learnt.

Sadly, we're very dharmic about building evolutions with a self imposed mental barrier that it will infringe IPR.

Govt & Ministry decision making and budgeting process is very complicated, as explained in my earlier post, with a view to facilitate corruption while ironically advertised as reducing corruption. Look at the delay in approval process for standard destroyers and frigates like Type 15A & B. The delay in ordering subsystems. The missiles for the latter are being ordered only now with the hulls at an advanced stage of completion.

And even for standard purchases like Embraer Bizjets for AEW&C, there are bribes demanded. If some idiot joker demands a ban on Embraer (as if the plane grew hands and dispensed cash), then the entire program is strangled due to lack of spares. And the demand to ban is actually a corruption attempt to get a new manufacturer to pay fresh bribes for fresh program.

The Brits in WW2 standardised on Merlin engine building single engined Spitfire, twin engined Mosquito and four engined Lancaster. We needed to negotiate on a single engine F-414 / Al-31 and standardise it for our programs. Once Kaveri is ready, standardise around it. Sadly, we create new programs without standardising. For example, foolishly run separate AESA RFP for Jaguar, Tejas and Sukhoi.

We don't identify right partners. For example, Eurofighter production is ending with zero interest from origin nation and we could strike a good deal for Eurojet and Eurofighter assembly from one of the four national lines. The IAF MMRCA technical recommendation was Rafale & Eurofighter but we foolishly did commercial nego with only Rafale.

Anyone with an iota of common sense would understand the benefit of conducting two negotiations to get the best deal.

Housewives teach 10 year olds to check with atleast two grocers before buying potatoes and onions and we don't while buying fighter planes.

Being an overpopulated nation, there is horrible bickering both inter-service/lab/factory and intra-service/lab/factory. Everyone wants to run a fresh program to get full credit and power instead of re-using something already done at some other lab/factory/service because that will mean sharing power and credit. Coteries are created everywhere for the same reason. The biggest threat to meritocracy is coteries, but even stalwart leaders surround themselves with yes men ignoring neutral talent if they're not yes men.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 24 May 2017 11:24

Screwdrivergiri is essential to learn like a kid as a Toddler plays with legos. But a 70 year old Nation with millions of engineers is "only" playing lego then something is very amiss.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 May 2017 11:31

Indranil wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Question to Raghu K / Indranil / Jay S - has HAL redesigned the gearbox to make use of higher thrust of Shakti/Ardiden at Sea Level? This will enable the new 16 naval version to carry heavier ASW payload.
This is my biggest question about Dhruv too. We should have Dhruv's optimized for high altitudes, and another one optimized for maximum load at sea level. Ditto, with LCH.

I recently got a glimpse from the IA pov only. Not HAL, not IN or IAF. For Mark-IV meant for IA, the MGB is redesigned, but mainly to remove issues related to reliability. They are doing the changes that I was expecting them to do to solve the problem of wear. They eliminated few components to make it more reliable (less components, less failures) and light weight. But no change in power, as far as I can tell. But there are separate IN and IAF attachments there too, working with HAL on their own versions and it might be so that the IN version has been optimized for sea level conditions as far as transmission and engine is concerned but I couldn't say for sure. But yes, if we can think of it on BRF, surely IN/HAL can think of it as well. If they are not doing it already then there might be some reason, we don't know). The same changes will be ported to LCH since it uses identical system and perhaps LUH too. They managed to shed some good weight. That takes care of some of the additional weight increase for Rudra systems. On top of it, all up weight is also enhanced (I am not sure if I should disclose the numbers). But you would be happy to know Rudra with full weapons load, can still carry significant weight/troops in its cargo compartment. Despite having a lot of additional instruments occupying rear space, it still has room. It wont be a comfortable ride, but a ride for few troops/cargo for sure.

The French engine has disappointing (I expected better) MTBO, Total life numbers currently. But those will go up as they are getting more and more experience in service. So its not a worry for the user or developer. Mark-IV has very good airframe life, which again will go up in all probability, as they do life extension on older air frames. Excellent finish, better than I expected. Absolute top notch. Impressive cockpit. Everything is neat and tidy. Compared to that, Mi-17 in service with IAF look like run down tincans (I know they are old and all, but my jingo mind can't stop comparing.

. A hat tip to IAF for keeping them flying..) A lot of sub-systems still from France. A huge potential for indigenisation there. HAL should give some of the samples to MSMEs for reverse engineering.

I already saw quite of lot of sub-systems already being developed by various DRDO labs and pvt MSMEs. We need to synergistically channelize these efforts to replace imported systems one by one.

Still lot of teething problems, which are being worked out by AFs and HAL together. Good to see such efforts, our AFs could never get such customization with imported systems. IMO the AFs need to take more assertive positions in running these programs and drive them like IN drives the ship projects. But for that they need to invest themselves with money, men and mind-set in these programs. More than what they are doing currently.

Sadly I couldn't see LUH.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 May 2017 12:41

Gyan wrote:Screwdrivergiri is essential to learn like a kid as a Toddler plays with legos. But a 70 year old Nation with millions of engineers is "only" playing lego then something is very amiss.

Exactly. Those original building blocks should be in place now. We should be building variants of the supposed ToTs. Negotiating a real TOT where you own the design you pay for, so that you can build any number or create as many variants as you want, is not something out pf the ordinary. It is something that other countries parlay for.

Every helo on that chini carrier is a variant of a French product patent.

From the Super Frelon:
Z-8JH SAR
Z-18 VIP
Z-18F ASW
Z-18J AEW

From the Dauphin:
Z-9S SAR

And that's not mentioning the J-15 which is a variant of many from the chini Flanker program (which is obviously ToT in spite of Roos protests, since they continue to supply the engines to the two PRC stealth fighter projects.)

Also check my posts in FGFA thread on the Z-9/Dauphin.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 May 2017 12:52

shiv wrote:
Vivek K wrote:
Screw driver giri has screwed India.
I contest this frequently made assertion because it is not true. Only scredrivergiri creates familiarity with technology. Contempt for scredrivergiri only evokes delusional dreams and those Indians who do not do screwdrivergiri have nothing to show in tech./engineering contribution to the nation (or to any other nation for that matter). The few innovations we have in India come from screwdrivergiri firms - not from de novo design houses.

Ironically ALL denovo design houses have to be experts at screwdrivergiri first

Not necessarily. The only reason why we see this in India is that for someone to put money on tech development on long gestation projects, he needs to bootstrap, which is often not possible for majority of folks. Only in exceptional case one might get funding/investment. I have seen some examples where promising tech startups struggle to even get an appointment with investors, while a me-too ecommerce biz can easily fetch millions of $$ relatively easily. In such scenario you will rarely find a newbie company come up with some solid technological development. Whereas its easier to see the same in places like Silicon Valley. In India, you have to do process oriented manual work for bread and butter and then invest a part of your earning into project of your liking for some innovative development as a side-by-side endeavour if you have to survive in Engineering services or manufacturing sector (at least, can't say about other sectors).

I also do not agree that only the screwdrivergiri entities have come up with innovations in India. There are many many examples from MSMEs, labs like DRDO/CSIR, or academic institutions coming up with innovations but they do not see daylight in majority of the cases or fail to become commercial successes because we do not have an ecosystem to support innovations.

Screwdrivergiri has its advantages and can expedite learning in certain areas. But expecting that one will learn everything just by copying is a fallacy. We tend to expect precisely the same. We can become experts in Aerospace without ZERO screwdrivergiri. But we cannot become experts by ONLY screwdrivergiri. We are in bad situation not because HAL didn't do zilch after doing lot of screwdrivergiri for decades. Its not because of lethargy of only one company, but a systematic problem in our country. We don't have academic set up for basic scientific research. We don't have companies to act Tier1 suppliers, and so on. Unless we solve that, this next round will be exactly the same, only now instead of DPSUs, a bunch of pvt companies will do screwdrivergiri. The gap is we don't follow up, as tsarkar has explained. And this is not about one company or only DPSU (a part of it may be but definitely not in entirety). Even the private companies will need extensive support, assurances and funding from GOI, DRDO and the AFs. If GOI does not do its bit, this round of screwdrivergiri will also fail.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 May 2017 12:58

Chinese has simply reverse engineered these French Chopper or lets say their look alike , They have even reverse engineered the American S-70 with their Z-20 chopper. They dont have any patents to it. The West does not mind it due to huge trading base with China or they must have quietly sold to china with some under the table dealing.

5 American Super Weapons Stolen by China

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 May 2017 13:21

Austin wrote:Chinese has simply reverse engineered these French Chopper or lets say their look alike , They have even reverse engineered the American S-70 with their Z-20 chopper. They dont have any patents to it. The West does not mind it due to huge trading base with China or they must have quietly sold to china with some under the table dealing.

5 American Super Weapons Stolen by China

Nope, the production patent buys of the Dauphin and Super Frelon are well documented.

You know, I never believed that reverse engineering stuff for highly complex systems like a heavy helo such as the Super Frelon or a frontline fighter like a SU-27. The Z-20 is not even in production yet (and might never be) and the PRC has had the S-70 since the 1970s. During the meantime, the Dauphin and Super Frelon were chugged out in endless varieties. This proves to me that direct TOT is needed.

You can't "reverse engineer" something with tens of thousands of moving parts and actually have the thing fly. You can RE stuff like toys or an electric razor maybe. But you need precise specs and tight tolerances for something that flies.

Trying to reverse engineer something this complicated seems impossible to me. I doubt even the US could reverse engineer a Flanker. Otherwise, we would be seeing an amreeki Flanker aggressor squadron or two at Red Flag.

No, chini had TOT where all the specs were handed over to them.

Even if they were not negotiated TOT, they were not punished for infractions since both the Euros and the Russkies are supplying Cheen with engines to three critical programs. That too is a lesson.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 May 2017 13:42

chola wrote:Nope, the production patent buys of the Dauphin and Super Frelon are well documented.

Any official document which says these production patent have been sold by French to Chinese and the latter is just free to modify it and if required sell it too or is it just limited to their local use ?

I havent come across such news before hence asking.

You know, I never believed that reverse engineering stuff for highly complex systems like a heavy helo such as the Super Frelon or a frontline fighter like a SU-27. The Z-20 is not even in production yet (and might never be) and the PRC has had the S-70 since the 1970s. During the meantime, the Dauphin and Super Frelon were chugged out in endless varieties. This proves to me that direct TOT is needed.

Z-20 will be in production once their testing is complete which is 2018.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... lies-china

You can't "reverse engineer" something with tens of thousands of moving parts and actually have the thing fly. You can RE stuff like toys or an electric razor maybe. But you need precise specs and tight tolerances for something that flies.

Well you can reverse engineer parts in thousands to the last screw , Its an Art only the Iranians and Chinese has shows persistancy in that art and they have not just copied it but modified it to their needs.
When you have no choice then then thats the obvious choice.

The drawback is you end up with the same solution and the same problem that inherent in any design that you copy ,Your Design Bureau gets moulded into copying stuff and then eventually you loose originality something you can design by yourself

Trying to reverse engineer something this complicated seems impossible to me. I doubt even the US could reverse engineer a Flanker. Otherwise, we would be seeing an amreeki Flanker aggressor squadron or two at Red Flag.

The US has bought Flankers the original older models from Ukranian airforce and they do use it in Red Flag
They also have experience training with flankers of newer model via IAF and RMAF

Even if they were not negotiated TOT, they were not punished for infractions since both the Euros and the Russkies are supplying Cheen with engines to three critical programs. That too is a lesson.

No harm in that its business , Euro have moved an entire Airbus plant to china when they demanded it.
We are making Al-31 engine from basic raw materials for sometime now and we have been making RR Jags engine too for a long time

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 May 2017 13:54

Austin wrote:[
Well you can reverse engineer parts in thousands to the last screw , Its an Art only the Iranians and Chinese has shows persistancy in that art and they have not just copied it but modified it to their needs.
When you have no choice then then thats the obvious choice.

The drawback is you end up with the same solution and the same problem that inherent in any design that you copy ,Your Design Bureau gets moulded into copying stuff and then eventually you loose originality something you can design by yourself

[

I am with Chola on this one, no way you reverse engineer every screw , nut etc unless you get access to the Capital Machinery, software know how of the original developers etc which makes them and no way you can know what are parameters etc, flight even lope software etc. Most of this "REVERSE ENGINEERING" by Chinese and Iranians is just TOT which is publicized as ingenious tech for H&D reasons. Many of these are imports with a different name just like our TATRA trucks are indigenous trucks because the are assembled in India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2017 14:26

The utter contempt with which the word screwdrivergiri is used on here is jarringly at odds with the majority of people of my social class whom I work with or meet here in India. Most of them are unable to do the most minor task with a screwdriver. Swapping out a faulty electrical switch is impossible for them. Swapping a hard disk on a desktop or adding RAM is completely alien. But yet it is precisely this class of people who have contempt for the low class worker who does screwdrivergiri as opposed to "smartness" and ability think and use one's brain.

There is no product of engineering that does not require screwdrivergiri. No engineering innovation can even become reality from CAD or imagination without the screwdrivergiri at the end. Having a large mass of people doing screwdrivergiri - who are familiar with tools, materials and techniques is the basis of all innovative engineering.

And then if you have a real smart person - say Mikoyan, or Pavel Sukhoi who innovates - once the innovation comes into production - it is all scredrivergiri. I am not claiming that scredrivergiri is innovation but no innovation becomes a working product without screwdrivergiri.

JayS wrote:There are many many examples from MSMEs, labs like DRDO/CSIR, or academic institutions coming up with innovations but they do not see daylight in majority of the cases or fail to become commercial successes because we do not have an ecosystem to support innovations.

An innovation on a computer screen means nothing until translated into a physical product. Why something did not come out is worth remembering only as "history" or as a lesson for the future.

But INSAS, Excalibur, Arjun, Arihant, Kiran, Dhruv, HTT 40, Huffy, Tuffy, Bolero, Bhim etc are all products that have arisen from the "prime culprit" screwdrivergirians of India. Not from some mysterious denonvo innovators who snootily look down on screwdrivergiri

Tejas - has been taken from ADA to HAL and will make the grade - probably because it has been handed to a primary scredrivergiri firm where people know what is needed to make something physical

Kaveri - which is still nowhere is the product of a "brainy innovation" lab with near zero scredrivergiri. On the other hand - a HAL designed turbofan appears ready to come into service soon - again the product of a company whose prime job for many decades has been scredrivergiri

Saras - is another ADA straggler going in fits and starts

BEL an ancient scredrivergiri firm is now big on radar and electronics. Don't know how much is innovation but there appears to be some.

ISRO is a different ballgame. It was never a lab. Apart from the Nike (?) "sounding rockets" that were launched 5 decades ago - its job has been fabrication from day 1. Source parts and chemicals from suitable sources, integrate them and shoot.

Mahindra and Mahindra did scredrivergiri for decades before a new generation started innovating. The same goes for Tata.

I am hard put to name any useful item that did not arise out of a primary scredrivergiri concern.

I am suggesting that the larger the mass of skilled screwdrivergiri people we have (people engaged in manufacture) the greater the opportunities for innovators to make products from ideas. The derision i see on this forum for "screwdrivergiri" is probably completely misinformed - it has become a fashion to push some idea and claim that the idea is "better than scredrivergiri" because all of us are supposed to say "Wah Wah Wah. Yes yes. Anything is better than scredrivergiri". But the performance "on the ground' suggests that this is nonsense

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2017 14:41

chola wrote:
Nope, the production patent buys of the Dauphin and Super Frelon are well documented.

Where is the documentation? Or at least a commentary by someone who has looked at it. Confident assertions should be easy to prove.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2017 14:44

Aditya_V wrote: no way you reverse engineer every screw ,

It is my belief that the Chinese did exactly that. I am trying to see if anyone can offer better information than mine - which is an opinion/statement of personal belief.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 24 May 2017 15:23

Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible instead of continuing with his own comparable ANT-64.The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year; 105,000 drawings were made.[9] By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft. ready for State acceptance trials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

Here. Every screw reverse engineered. No factories/deep TOT exchanged.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 May 2017 15:29

shiv wrote:The utter contempt with which the word screwdrivergiri is used on here is jarringly at odds with the majority of people of my social class whom I work with or meet here in India. Most of them are unable to do the most minor task with a screwdriver. Swapping out a faulty electrical switch is impossible for them. Swapping a hard disk on a desktop or adding RAM is completely alien. But yet it is precisely this class of people who have contempt for the low class worker who does screwdrivergiri as opposed to "smartness" and ability think and use one's brain.

There is no product of engineering that does not require screwdrivergiri. No engineering innovation can even become reality from CAD or imagination without the screwdrivergiri at the end. Having a large mass of people doing screwdrivergiri - who are familiar with tools, materials and techniques is the basis of all innovative engineering.

And then if you have a real smart person - say Mikoyan, or Pavel Sukhoi who innovates - once the innovation comes into production - it is all scredrivergiri. I am not claiming that scredrivergiri is innovation but no innovation becomes a working product without screwdrivergiri.

You seem to have little different definition of screwdrivergiri, shiv.

Manufacturing is not screwdrivergiri..!! I use screwdrivergiri to refer to making/doing something with step by step instructions given to you - do these steps and voila you have a product. That's screwdrivergiri to me. If you give someone blue print and he manufactures it by setting up processes on his own, that not screwdrivergiri. That's Engineering. In manufacturing you can either make "make to print" parts with your own process that has been set up/developed by you or you can "make to print" same part with full step by step instructions coming from the client company with the actual manufacturer having zero control or understanding of process. The second part is screwdrivergiri for me. First part is not.

Similarly it could be for Design engineer. If a structural engineer in BLR merely follows process set by some OEM, using OEM specified tools perform structural design for the OEM product, that's screwdrivergiri. The other side could be that the engineer in BLR owns the entire design of the component, he has his own tools, validated design process and he makes it to the specs demanded by the OEM. That's Engineering.

I hope the difference is clear, from my perspective. BTW I do white collar screwdrivergiri for bread and butter now a days. And I know exactly what is the difference between screwdrivergiri and Engineering, having done both.

Actually I don't know why you are bringing in this contempt thing. In fact most here against screwdrivergiri want us to actually get down and "do it our self" and learn rather than importing it or doing screwdrivergiri. That's actually one step ahead of screwdrivergiri in terms of dirtying our hands in product development. So where does this contempt thing comes from..??

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2017 18:57

JayS wrote: You seem to have little different definition of screwdrivergiri, shiv.

Manufacturing is not screwdrivergiri..!! I use screwdrivergiri to refer to making/doing something with step by step instructions given to you - do these steps and voila you have a product. That's screwdrivergiri to me. If you give someone blue print and he manufactures it by setting up processes on his own, that not screwdrivergiri. That's Engineering. In manufacturing you can either make "make to print" parts with your own process that has been set up/developed by you or you can "make to print" same part with full step by step instructions coming from the client company with the actual manufacturer having zero control or understanding of process. The second part is screwdrivergiri for me. First part is not.

No. There is not too much of a difference between what you say and what I am implying.

Let us take the Jaguar, Hawk or Su 30 as examples.

Is what is done in India screwdrivergiri?

If the product starts with CKD parts and is built initially as you have said:

I use screwdrivergiri to refer to making/doing something with step by step instructions given to you - do these steps and voila you have a product. That's screwdrivergiri to me.

This is screwdrivergiri

Gradually over years the process changes to

you can either make "make to print" parts with your own process that has been set up/developed by you or you can "make to print" same part with full step by step instructions coming from the client company with the actual manufacturer having zero control or understanding of process. The second part is screwdrivergiri for me. First part is not.

Do you believe that HAL (or HVF Avadi or OFB) is doing "second part" scredrivergiri or first part "not screwdrivergiri"?

Assume these companies are doing only screwdrivergiri by your definitions - what is the magic that has allowed them to develop products of their own using processes and tools they have developed? (eg Dhruv, HTT 40, Arjun and INSAS)

If primary "scredrivergiri" companies can develop their own products can it be claimed that those who do scredrivergiri will never develop products of their own

JayS wrote: Actually I don't know why you are bringing in this contempt thing. In fact most here against screwdrivergiri want us to actually get down and "do it our self" and learn rather than importing it or doing screwdrivergiri. That's actually one step ahead of screwdrivergiri in terms of dirtying our hands in product development. So where does this contempt thing comes from..??

I never write these things lightly. "Scredrivergiri" on BRF is a term of contempt and derision. I am not bringing it in. I am asking "Why do people use the term "screwdrivergiri" done by an Indian company as an example of useless work that will get them nowhere and generate no innovation?

Do they even know what scredrivergiri entails? Why do people say that Screwdrivergiri is a useless exercise without being able to say who in India has done innovation without screwdrivergiri?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 May 2017 19:09

Shiv - import and TOT based manufacture is screwdrivergiri. How many foreign (CKD/SKD) Tanks has India assembled 4000 - 5000? How many Indian Tanks has India manufactured - 125? How many foreign aircraft has India assembled (CKD/SKD/Deep TOT) - probably 2,000 or more? How many Indian aircraft have been built locally - 80 to 100 Ajeets, and perhaps a similar number of Maruts.

What tech does the Arjun borrow from the T-series? What techs does the LCA borrow from the Migs/Sukhois/M2Ks/Mysteres/Jaguars etc.? Composite techs - Indian, Powerplant - US, Digital Quadruplex FBW - Indian, Control Laws - Indian.

With all the engines that HAL has assembled, how many engines has it made that can be called purely Indian? With the deep TOT for the Sukhois, how much tech absorption and its use in other streams has taken place? It seems like none. The Kaveri continues to languish.

So the screwdrivergiri or licensed assembly has not promoted innovation or reverse engineering in India like it has in other nations.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2017 19:18

Vivek K wrote:Shiv - import and TOT based manufacture is screwdrivergiri. How many foreign (CKD/SKD) Tanks has India assembled 4000 - 5000? How many Indian Tanks has India manufactured - 125? How many foreign aircraft has India assembled (CKD/SKD/Deep TOT) - probably 2,000 or more? How many Indian aircraft have been built locally - 80 to 100 Ajeets, and perhaps a similar number of Maruts.
<snip>
So the screwdrivergiri or licensed assembly has not promoted innovation or reverse engineering in India like it has in other nations.

Not disputing your statistics but disputing your conclusion

All Indian innovation, rare and infrequent as it is has come from companies doing screwdrivergiri
No one has yet managed to answer my question as to which Indian company has shown pure engineering innovation and has a a visible product without previous history of screwdrivergiri

The point is that as far as I can see in India
1. Those who have done no screwdrivergiri have no innovation to boast of
2. The few innovations India has produced have come ONLY from screwdrivergiri doing companies

From these facts how does one reach the conclusion you (and others) have reached

So the screwdrivergiri or licensed assembly has not promoted innovation or reverse engineering in India like it has in other nations.

The only innovation we have got is from the companies doing the screwdrivergiri that is being portrayed and blamed as an impediment to innovation.

I say no - innovation will only come from those who have experience in scredrivergiri. We need to foster that innovation in screwdrivergiri companies and not claim that they cannot innovate. There is no one else to innovate.

Mahindra, Tata and Reliance will do Scredrivergiri only. It will be many years before they gain the necessary screwdrivergiri skillsets to innovate

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 May 2017 19:29

Jaeger wrote:
Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible instead of continuing with his own comparable ANT-64.The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year; 105,000 drawings were made.[9] By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft. ready for State acceptance trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

Here. Every screw reverse engineered. No factories/deep TOT exchanged.

Glad you brought up the SuperFortressSki.

So all you need to reverse engineer a WW II era aircraft is be a superpower already with a massive military industrial complex and of course 900 (NINE f-ing HUNDRED) factories and research institutes.

Austin brought up Iran. Iran had the F-14 since the 1970s, if there is anything they would want to RE it would be the TomCat. But are there any persian F-14s five decades later? No.

TOT for Iran, Cheen, India or any other turdwolders is supposed to BUILD out those 900 factories and research institutes. If they are already in place then what is the point? Just use that massive resource to do clean slate design (which was what Russia did and the Super Fortress became nothing more than a footnote.)

Reverse Engineer of complex systems has never been feasible in my view. Otherwise, the Sioux would have made Winchester repeating rifles, the Bantus Maxim machineguns and no one would need licenses.

Use Occram's Razor. We know that TOT of Dauphin and Super Frelon were sold to Cheen in the 1980s. We know that today, Cheen is building these units by the hundreds and in all kinds of variants. We also know that today, that Euros are not punishing Cheen over any kind of infractions and instead is knee deep into other helo and aviation projects with Cheen like Z-11 and Z-15 as well as the critical Leap X engine for their prestige flagship C919.

The simplest explanation is that the Euros is abetting Cheen openly and that this tolerance was negotiated.

The alternative answer is convoluted and fantastical -- Cheen coping 10s of thousands of parts, had a 900 factories and institutes ready to make those parts (in the 1980s and 90s) and then France and the other Euros just letting them slide over building variants and exports. Bullsh1t.

No, Cheen did not have those 900 factories and institutes until AFTER the license building not before.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 May 2017 20:29

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote: This is my biggest question about Dhruv too. We should have Dhruv's optimized for high altitudes, and another one optimized for maximum load at sea level. Ditto, with LCH.
I recently got a glimpse from the IA pov only. ...

Thanks for the update. I had heard about their achievements in increasing life, but did not know about their payload increase.

JayS wrote: On top of it, all up weight is also enhanced (I am not sure if I should disclose the numbers).

You should not.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 24 May 2017 20:53

+1008 to Dr. Shiv on screwdriver-giri.

You start with screwdriver-giri and work your way up to to riveter-giri to welder-giri to fabricator-giri to designer-giri.

Just like in IT, the good IT companies start with body-shopping and work their way up to project outsourcing to product design.

JMHO

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 May 2017 07:45

There is another big issue with reverse engineering. The first few copies will be very inferior to the originals, any of the chinese cheap copies of aircraft, submarines etc are testimony to that. However, since the chinese armed forces had no alternative, they accepted it and continued to iterate on it.

Key requirement is that the first few versions will be worse, but users need to accept it and designers need to keep iterating on it. There needs to be a mentality change among users, government, R&D etc. The government needs to keep funding it. If users reject it saying the reverse engineered version is a decade behind the original, govt will stop funding it as armed forces rejected it. The project will hit a dead end.

That's why its easier to get small subcomponents reverse engineered, than entire systems. And most of the times, users call for reverse engineering/substitutes when the OEM stops supplying parts!