Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jun 2012 10:43

Vivek K wrote:Acharya - why didn't similar sabotage hit ADA, ISRO, Arjun designers? Lets face it - we failed in the task. The victim mentality suits our neighbors better. We can still use the work done with better resources and management.

Some of these orgs were hidden and were sourcing with dual use tech.
Engine tech was sabotaged in the 60s itself. Indian experts were open in talking about their goals and ambitions in the western universities which was picked up by the Cya and they could reduce input to the Indian program effectively. Indian scientists were also regulated on their access to western universities and research after 1971.(India SU treaty)

The whole concept of dual use tech denial regime started with India experience. Check the wisconsin project.
India was the target of this project which started in 1986. This the RG govt era when India made strides in Agni and RV tech. Also they effectively created a global regime for tech denial and reduce the progress of WMD and missile proliferation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_ ... ms_Control

The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control is a non-profit, non-partisan organization established to curb the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through research and advocacy.[1] The organization was founded by Emeritus Professor Gary Milhollin, who led the Wisconsin Project for twenty-five years. Valerie Lincy now serves as executive director.[2] The organization aims to stem weapons proliferation at the source through its emphasis on the monitoring and control of export and other trade transactions.[1] Established in 1986 in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the Wisconsin Project is located in Washington, DC.[1]

In 1995, the Wisconsin Project began publication of The Risk Report, which is now a subscription database used by governments and private companies to screen business transactions and verify the legitimacy of foreign buyers.[1] Drawing from unclassified sources, The Risk Report contains up-to-date information on sensitive products and technologies, export regulations, and organizations and individuals linked to WMD proliferation.[4] Matthew Godsey is editor of the Risk Report.

It was a secret project until the 90s and India focus is completely classified from the 60s

India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation Updated Edition with a New Afterword
George Perkovich
Check this book to understand how they could read the Indian experts talking about the Indian program and they could assess the progress made by Indian teams and what is lacking inside India to complete the project. This is the most open source intelligence and tech denial ever done in history.

sum · Post by **sum** » 21 Jun 2012 11:58

^^From Livefist:

India's HAL has begun scouting for a technology partner for it recently revealed all-new 20kN turbofan engine programme aimed at powering UAV/UCAVs, military trainers, transports and light utility aircraft. The yet unnamed project under HAL's Engine Test Bed Research & Development Centre (ETBRDC) in Bangalore is now the third Indian effort to build turbofan powerplants for unmanned aircraft.

The two existing efforts are the GTRE small turbofan concept Laghu Shakti (the same as this one, for which GTRE has a tie-up with Russia's NPO Saturn?), and a spin-off modification of the Kaveri turbofan that we now know will power India's AURA/IUSAV stealth UCAV.

There's a bit of overlap that needs sorting out though. In 2007, HAL had revealed that it was developing a "twin spool turbofan engine to power a cruise missile under design". It had gone on to say that that "ETBRDC will jointly develop this engine with NAL and GTRE. The engine is small; the technology involved is as complex as any bigger engine. Since the usage is for missile application, no external help can be sought and the engine has to be wholly indigenous. This is a challenging task and ETBRDC is confident that it can meet the challenge." (Was HAL talking about the Laghu Shakti? Possibly. The new 20kN engine effort was only announced in February this year.)

So there it is, tentatively: the GTRE-HAL-NAL Laghu Shakti for the Nirbhay cruise missile and unmanned applications, a modified spin-off version of the Kaveri engine, and HAL's new ab initio turbofan proposal.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2012 12:13

there is no overlap between laghu shakti and this 20kn thing even if laghu shakti is same thrust.

a CM engine needs to work for 2 hrs only, the needs of a aeroplane/UCAV/UAV engine are far different. a lot of corners can be cut and trailing edge tech used in CM engine if one is prepared to pay some penalty in payload/range......opex is also not an issue at all.

Jayram · Post by **Jayram** » 21 Jun 2012 14:21

crazy question but why dont we collaborate engine development or outsource the problem parts of engine development with Israel? Those guys may not have the know how now but surely can be tasked to develop this single grain blades or blisk or whatever else. No problems with H&D for the GTRE babus and the Israelis can get that knowhow any way they want .. no questions asked by us.. If it is that important to us we should be willing to try something different seeing how the usual PSU way is just not cutting it..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2012 14:45

maybe the israelis are not so good at engine tech as they prefer to import their own engines . they dont even make the small uav engines.

searcher UAV - limbach engine germany
heron UAV - rotax engine austria
eitan UAV - p&w usa
merkava engine - detroit diesel
hermes UAV - UEL UK

btw cos like this http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/ are the cheap and 'strategic' buys and partners we could look for.

the only guys with the end to end expertise in ANY form of engine are UK, germany, france, russia and USA.
japan, sweden and italy have 'some' muscle.
canada and soko are likely trying to climb the food chain.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Jun 2012 16:45

On one side, one could side with Acharya's notion of scam at a larger sense. On the other hand, it is a total failure in basic thinking. How many times we have visited grumov test facilities? don't we think we need to have similar test facilities here? faster feedback into design corrections saves ton of money ahead in the game.

We have to engage the RTI and find out what has happened at GTRE and HAL, and why there is a gross failure. It is okay to fail at getting the product ready in time.. but it is not okay to mismanage the project. There is no technical capabilities required to manage it correct.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 21 Jun 2012 19:56

Singha wrote:maybe the israelis are not so good at engine tech as they prefer to import their own engines . they dont even make the small uav engines.

searcher UAV - limbach engine germany
heron UAV - rotax engine austria
eitan UAV - p&w usa
merkava engine - detroit diesel
hermes UAV - UEL UK

btw cos like this http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/ are the cheap and 'strategic' buys and partners we could look for.

the only guys with the end to end expertise in ANY form of engine are UK, germany, france, russia and USA.
japan, sweden and italy have 'some' muscle.
canada and soko are likely trying to climb the food chain.

In the overall sense yes but just a nitpick, for the FADEC stuff I believe Russia still uses the off the shelf chips/processors etc. Just brought that up as Russia is still dependent on the west after it abandoned its own chips/processors programs and started building defence products with off the shelf electronics.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2012 20:00

Rus is a bit behind in materials - but they can do clean sheet designs for anything from 10KN to 200KN on demand and have the people, product strategy, test facilities and more importantly a long history of success and failure to fall back on. every failure is also a good learning if its teachings are noted and used later.

and as we can see in IMO/IPO/ICO/code jams they are top notch in maths, physics, coding...

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 21 Jun 2012 20:50

HAL and GTRE have both shown lack of innovation and ability/initiative to cross tech hurdles. Therefore HAL should not scout for a new partner for the 20KN turbofan project. A new entity should be created with talent from all over and given the resources to deliver.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 21 Jun 2012 21:45

Russians have never been behind in Mat Science, its the micro application of Mat science they were and are lagging relative to West.
Russians (USSR) always used think big is beautiful but small can do wonders was realized later. Now they are taking small steps too.

for example read here

http://home.comcast.net/~rusaerog/mir/M ... %20SCIENCE

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2012 01:16

I was excited to see a lot of to and fro between Shiv Aroor and Prasun Sengupta about aero engines in the making ... I think the reporters both of them combined have the right picture and individually they are confusing between class of engines. THis is what my comprehension of India's engine programs are for UAVs/missiles:

1. GTRE Laghu Shakti (4-5 kN): This one is for UAVs for the 500-1000 kg class. There are reports that IAF/IN want a single-turbofan powered UAV where the piston/rotax engines won't do. This has never been reported before. Neelam Mathews had confused Rustom 1 as Rustom H and reported that it is flying with a 36MT engine. The reports further say that DRDO is already developing such a UAV). This engine can be used on missiles (don't know about restrictions) as NPO-Saturn builds the same class of engine 36MT used on various Russian missiles.

2. HAL (4-5 kN) engine: This one will be used for sub sonic cruise missiles like Nirbhay ... Nirbahy having a range above 300 kms most probably can't use Laghu shakti if NPO-Saturn is transferring tech.

3. HAL (20 kN): This definitely is a new project. I was going thorugh HAL-CONNECT a few days ago and there was material on the same. Unfortunately, the link is not working today for me (Will post the link if it comes up again). I wonder what this engine is going to be used for? Future Trainers/UCAVs(5 - 10 Ton Class)?

4. Kaveri derivative: This is for IUSAV (10-15 Ton UCAVs).

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jun 2012 09:58

It would be interesting to speculate how would be Rustom with 2 x 4kn laugh shakti engines

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jun 2012 20:17

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19165
some of these funds should be diverted to Kaveri++.

talent invited and added.
GTRE issues /[project management onlee] must be resolved within 6months flat from now

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 02:47

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19510126/High ... ine-Blades

http://www.keytometals.com/page.aspx?ID ... ktn&NM=250
read all the parts

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jul 2012 20:01

chaiwalas don't often visit this orphaned thread.. no gov support for Kaveri is what I read from dork media.
so, if you do meet the chaiwalas, ask them to drop by here. only few harischandras left guarding the cremation grounds.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 03 Jul 2012 21:46

Growing single crystal in a crucible is different from pouring into hundreds of blade moulds and maching them to precision.

Indian labs maybe there on the bleeding edge and publish papers but even the great BARC folks who in shot certify and productionize devices have to seek collaboration.
We have the know how but need how do

By the BARC has a big set up for solid state physics crystallography and advanced materials lab
I would prefer they develop Kaveri engine

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Jul 2012 00:58

Hindu (05-07-2012)
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 604329.ece

Assumes charge at GTRE
C.P. Ramanarayanan, Scientist “G”, took charge as the Director of Gas Turbine Research Establishment, here on Monday. Dr. Ramanarayanan also holds additional charge as Director Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Dr. Ramanarayanan joined the Naval Science and Technological Laboratory, and worked on various underwater weapon projects. He was conferred “Scientist of the Year Award” in 2005.

All the best

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 10 Jul 2012 11:35

Just found this in an article dated June 25th. Posting FWIW

The DRDO won't give up on the Kaveri engine just as yet. One reason that Selvamurthy gives for not having succeeded in getting the Kaveri engines fitted to the Tejas is the absence of high-powered engine manufacturers in the country. Elsewhere, companies like GE and Rolls Royce manufacture engines for aircraft. Even the Tejas has had to fall back on GE engines. "We have managed to get 70 kilo Newton thrust out of the Kaveri engine. It has been tested for 55 hours on an IL-76. The Tejas requires a thrust of about 80 KNewtons. We shall try the engine on a Tejas and we believe that it will cover upto 80% flight envelop. We may use it for the trainers or even unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). There is also great possibility of use of the marine Kaveri engine," the DRDO R&D chief said. According to him, several foreign firms have expressed eagerness to partner with DRDO for an engine that can provide 130 KNewton thrust required for the AMCA. "

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Jul 2012 12:31

Kailash wrote:Just found this in an article dated June 25th. Posting FWIW

The DRDO won't give up on the Kaveri engine just as yet. One reason that Selvamurthy gives for not having succeeded in getting the Kaveri engines fitted to the Tejas is the absence of high-powered engine manufacturers in the country. Elsewhere, companies like GE and Rolls Royce manufacture engines for aircraft. Even the Tejas has had to fall back on GE engines. "We have managed to get 70 kilo Newton thrust out of the Kaveri engine. It has been tested for 55 hours on an IL-76. The Tejas requires a thrust of about 80 KNewtons. We shall try the engine on a Tejas and we believe that it will cover upto 80% flight envelop. We may use it for the trainers or even unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). There is also great possibility of use of the marine Kaveri engine," the DRDO R&D chief said. According to him, several foreign firms have expressed eagerness to partner with DRDO for an engine that can provide 130 KNewton thrust required for the AMCA.
"

130 kn Hmmmmmmmmm!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jul 2012 12:44

>> several foreign firms have expressed eagerness to partner with DRDO for an engine that can provide 130 KNewton thrust required for the AMCA. "

that is AL31++/F110 class big motor. which means
[1] AMCA could be single engine design (a proper faithful to the JSF concept)
[2] a huge twin engine of the F-15 size.

either way the Rafale size AMCA model shown does not need such engines.

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Jul 2012 12:53

I think that Cruise missile engine 4kn from HAL and GTRE may be one and the same project rather than two different projects.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jul 2012 21:12

They talk about 70kN achievement, and 130kN firangi help etc.. while the real requirement from IAF is clearly stated out in the op.ed. as 95kN~100kN.

They should get the requirements right first.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jul 2012 21:35

Kailash wrote:Just found this in an article dated June 25th. Posting FWIW

The DRDO won't give up on the Kaveri engine just as yet. One reason that Selvamurthy gives for not having succeeded in getting the Kaveri engines fitted to the Tejas is the absence of high-powered engine manufacturers in the country. Elsewhere, companies like GE and Rolls Royce manufacture engines for aircraft. Even the Tejas has had to fall back on GE engines. "We have managed to get 70 kilo Newton thrust out of the Kaveri engine. It has been tested for 55 hours on an IL-76. The Tejas requires a thrust of about 80 KNewtons. We shall try the engine on a Tejas and we believe that it will cover upto 80% flight envelop. We may use it for the trainers or even unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). There is also great possibility of use of the marine Kaveri engine," the DRDO R&D chief said. According to him, several foreign firms have expressed eagerness to partner with DRDO for an engine that can provide 130 KNewton thrust required for the AMCA. "

That's the way to go. Kaveri needs to be mated with the LCA to be fully tested out. More refinement will come out of it. ADA/DRDO should make use of 2 to 3 PVs for such integration work after LCA Mk.1 completes R&D for FOC.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jul 2012 22:21

Yes, it is mighty important to mate the 70kN wala into Tejas., at least for couple of the TD/PVs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jul 2012 22:40

It is very important to flight qualify an engine and then certify it after flying it for x amount of hours with the airplane ....that itself is a huge and critical task and some thing we will have to learn as we proceed.

No aero engine is good no matter how many hours it runs on bench and proves it self unless it does not get flight qualified for the aircraft.

So mating of 70 kN engine with LCA is a very critical and important step , even though the engine may not enter into production with Tejas it would help in over coming many technical challenges and over come the learning curve.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jul 2012 22:44

++million.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jul 2012 03:40

The person is very clear about the limitations of the Kaveri (80% of flight envelop). I assume the issue is obtaining a LCA frame to mate it with. They should have access to one in the very near future to use as a sandbox.

However, wonder if two 70 KNewton engines would suffice to get the AMCA moving. Instead of a single 130 KN one.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Jul 2012 09:41

I thought AMCA is a twin eng bird. Is it not? Kavari even at 80% capability is useful for things like AMCA and who knows a trainer version of the LCA or who knows Marut 2000 for dedicated ground attack/bomber role. Good they are persisting with the project.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Jul 2012 10:28

We should buy a twin engine plane to test this puppy. Would hate to see a plane go down and Kaveri programme with it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jul 2012 11:07

AMCA is definitely a twin engined bird. 130kN per engine is a shock to me. I will wait for further news on this. at the moment it sounds like a mis-information to me (choti mooh badi baat).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jul 2012 20:00

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19346

request please start a public inquiry into Kaveri-Snecma deal.. CAG must get in now, and find out what is going on? what we need is in the future, to replace the GE414 with near 100kN wet. And, never we have heard M88 versions reaching anywhere near that.

Snecnma deal should be withdrawn, and re-looked at requirements first. This basic requirement is going to put another big bad planning to happen soon.

GTRE better get revamped or shutdown.

no where out in the web, one could get specs of M88-4E to match GE 414-in version with 98kN.

THIS IS CRITICALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM!

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 15 Jul 2012 20:49

35 years back in 1977, GTRE first demonstrated the GTX37-14U afterburning turbojet (as per wiki) and this was what gave it confidence to develop kaveri.

35 years from now in 2047 (100th anniversary of independence), I wonder what GTRE can show case as substantial achievements considering that even now, kaveri is not fully indigenized(critical hot sections) and no new projects (e.g civil engines) sanctioned for it.

Heck it doesnt even have a dedicated flying test bed of its own.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 22 Jul 2012 02:47

Hasn't this been posted here before ? Fascinating time-lapse of the RR Trent engines being built:
Awesome Time Lapse Shows How Rolls-Royce Builds Its Jet Engines

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Jul 2012 10:50

SaiK wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19346

request please start a public inquiry into Kaveri-Snecma deal.. CAG must get in now, and find out what is going on? what we need is in the future, to replace the GE414 with near 100kN wet. And, never we have heard M88 versions reaching anywhere near that.

Snecnma deal should be withdrawn, and re-looked at requirements first. This basic requirement is going to put another big bad planning to happen soon.

GTRE better get revamped or shutdown.

no where out in the web, one could get specs of M88-4E to match GE 414-in version with 98kN.

THIS IS CRITICALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM!

Is the GTRE -Snecma deal ever going to happen? We've been hearing about it since ages. And AFAIK that engine is not for the LCA.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Jul 2012 21:41

As per reports from flying test bed test of kaveri engine, there were problems in Fan and LP, which shows that all this chest beating about lack of SCB is to hide the fact that Kaveri is facing problem across the board even in very basics.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2012 23:14

vic never came across such reports of Kaveri facing problem with fan and LP in the test being conducted on a modified IL-76 at Gramov , all reports i saw mentioned the test went well and they wanted to run for more number of hours.

Can you point the reports which mentions these problems ? Thanks

Will · Post by **Will** » 24 Jul 2012 01:35

Arent there any bankrupt engine makers around? Maybe one of our private sector companies can go ahead and buy one of them

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2012 07:23

Will wrote:Arent there any bankrupt engine makers around? Maybe one of our private sector companies can go ahead and buy one of them

It's not the factories or the machinery that is important. It is the technology - that is what materials to use in what proportions and how to treat those materials to create a material that can be used in an engine, what specs for the inside of the engine using those materials.

Technology is about human resources, that is why it is called "knowhow". Computers are not technology, making the chips and storage devices and writing the software are technology. You can buy hardware but technology cannot be bought any more that you can buy a knowledge of Sanskrit because you want to catch up with what you have missed.

Educated Indians still believe that factories make things. It's humans that make things. Indian technical knowledge base is still so poor even among highly educated Indians that most seem to go about thinking that factories will make things. You need know how to make the machines that make the components of engines and even more knowhow to use those components to make the engine. This is about a very broad industrial and technical knowledge base that was set up in the west and Russia and Japan in the late 1800s and early 1900s. We are actually 100 years behind. And we don't even know it.

Even our IITs that are at the pinnacle of our engineering mug-pot creation are very low down in the world when it comes to post-graduate engineering studies at hi-funda level. If we need private sector to do something it is to set up high level research insitutes and fund them so we can catch up in 50 years. Why are we depending on IIT and government for high level engineering research? We curse the GoI for everything, call then traitors etc, but every goddam Indian wants to put his son in IIT so he can get placement abroad after studying in IIT in dirt cheap, subsidized socialist style. And then we curse Nehru for socialism. It's not GoI. It's us the "private" citizens and greedy private entrepreneurs who are stupid. We want cheap education, and we will not invest in research. Then we buy high tech and praise the foreign entity that has bust its butt developing tech for decades and imagine that we will get the stuff by simply buying up a loss making factory. That is business-vysyagiri - what we need is not vysya buddhi. We need some shudra hard work and the vysya to spend money keeping investing in those shudras. We need shudra engineers, not brahman engineers.

After 15 years of BRF I still find people coming up with the same ideas.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Jul 2012 08:36

shiv wrote: It's not GoI. It's us the "private" citizens and greedy private entrepreneurs who are stupid. We want cheap education, and we will not invest in research. Then we buy high tech and praise the foreign entity that has bust its butt developing tech for decades and imagine that we will get the stuff by simply buying up a loss making factory. That is business-vysyagiri - what we need is not vysya buddhi. We need some shudra hard work and the vysya to spend money keeping investing in those shudras. We need shudra engineers, not brahman engineers.

After 15 years of BRF I still find people coming up with the same ideas.

Shiv ji: I have no issues with your base prognosis that we are 100 years behind and the layers of innovation it takes to make something on the class of modern aero-engines. Forget, engines, I see a dearth of real innovative software, within our so called IT industry. However, there is one area of disagreement. Vaishyas are not stupid not to invest in research. To invest in research, one needs to build an ecosystem, where this long and risky endeavor has a chance of success and most important predictability of policy. It is policy that allows for such an investment and I am not even referring to incentives like tax breaks or capitalization of research for long term depreciation (done in the past decade or so). Until 1991 and certainly till IG, Vaishyas were considered greedy hoarders not to be trusted (I have heard this from someone, how has heard it first hand from IG), the treatment was not unlike how Pakis are treated at the foreign policy level. It is the same language you are using here. Manufacturing anything worthwhile in India was a crime controlled through licenses. Forget high tech manufacturing even low tech screw driver tech manufacturing was penalized with intrusive harassment from excise tax officers and once out of the factory in the hands of Octroi and Sales tax officers. The vaishya networks operated without the protection of the state by way of any type of enforceable contract laws, constant harassment and threat of takeovers by the state for any large and meaningful industry. Even today, the situation has not vastly improved. So, pray tell me, which thinking Vaishya will put their money behind research? Vaishyas are the same everywhere, it is the system that decides their level of participation in a certain economy.

This is OT but I have seen a similar set of posts by you in the same vein for some time now. I blame GoI not for not doing enough themselves, I blame them for chipping at our own two feet with our own axes, to cripple us for a long time, who's effects are still not completely out. A private defense enterprise making low tech defense items is no match to a politically controlled unaccountable DPSU. Extending this paradigm, no private business in India is ANY match to the machinations of the state that continues to meddle in the business of business in the name of socialism - an official goal of our pre-amblem. Do not seek to continue here as it would be OT, however did want to say, the issue is not the Vaishyas to a large extent, it is our government.

We were unable to attract Intel to setup a chip fabrication plant in India, believe we lost it at the time to Malaysia, this was in the 90's - The effect of one such decision is huge as it affects an entire ecosystem of similar and dependent industries in the supply chain, not to mention the attraction that such brand names create. There is a reason why a Modi sought to attract the Nano to Gujrat, as although Gujrat has many industries and companies, it lacked a high profile name brand. Modi was not just looking at the attractiveness of the Nano for Gujratt but is betting that due this this investment an entire automotive industry would come up in the state the way it has around Pune and Chennai. The Tatas, a Vaishya would go wherever, it makes business sense and most importantly predictability of policy. The loss was entirely of W. Bengal and Mamta Banerjee. So, did the GoI act as Mamta Banerjee or as Modi?

A Nandy · Post by **A Nandy** » 24 Jul 2012 09:08

Is releasing research funds still unfortunately in the hands of the government instead of people who understand its importance ? If there were a group of scientists deciding grants in the country, and what direction research should take and they were always allocated the entire chunk of money that the government can spend, then things would be better.

I though such organizations were always in place, but I guess they do not work.