V K Saraswat's reply to NAK Browne: Indigenous development takes time

[rubyjackass]

Though ACM is correct about his point but saying all this openly isn't a good thing. Things must be sorted out inside close doors. Seems MoD is sleeping these days.

Ohh please. Those closed door statements would have made sense a decade ago. It is only because DRDO is bashed publicly that there is some movement in their ranks. Otherwise they routinely showed us some dreams and were never held responsible.

 

[sancho]

Wow
Did any one know when Mr. Saraswat is retiring from the office ??? Just asking

The sooner the better I would say, but who knows who comes next? More importantly though is more stronger leading from MoDs side. ADA and DRDO must need to be taken accountable for their projects and somethimes one must show them their limitations and if they can't do it on their own, a superior official has to do it.

 

[Screambowl]

The sooner the better I would say, but who knows who comes next? More importantly though is more stronger leading from MoDs side. ADA and DRDO must need to be taken accountable for their projects and somethimes one must show them their limitations and if they can't do it on their own, a superior official has to do it.

even if a senior official is appointed, ultimately brain power has to be used to develop technology and if it doesnt come out on time then we have to approach the international sources.

 

[muse]

He said for making an indigenous product there is a tremendous amount of effort required which could lead to success and failure simultaneously. “There is a difference between cooked food and food being prepared. Indigenous development is the same. To prepare food is more difficult than serving already cooked food (or fast food),” he contended. It is a fact of life that development process will take time, he added.[

To me it's excuse making and it's pretty bold, he must be secure in his position - His analogy itself is problematic, are weapons systems from abroad really the equivalent of fast food?

 

[WHITESMOKE]

To me it's excuse making and it's pretty bold, he must be secure in his position - His analogy itself is problematic, are weapons systems from abroad really the equivalent of fast food?

By fast food he meant products those are already developed.

Ohh please. Those closed door statements would have made sense a decade ago. It is only because DRDO is bashed publicly that there is some movement in their ranks. Otherwise they routinely showed us some dreams and were never held responsible.

And you think public bashing will make any new difference?

 

[sancho]

even if a senior official is appointed, ultimately brain power has to be used to develop technology and if it doesnt come out on time then we have to approach the international sources.

It is not about getting it in time, because even more advanced countries and their industries struggel a lot in getting modern developments ready in time at according to the budgets. My problem is, that there is no logical sense in the way DRDO is approaching the developments, that the management of the projects is highly biased wrt to doing things they "hope" they can do and that they often are not on the same line to the real requirements of our forces.
Imo it is simply silly if our industry developed things, wasting time and money, when that is not what our forces needs to defend the country.

 

[anant_s]

This intra-departmental war between various government agencies and departments in nothing new. However i do have my sympathies with IAF. Mr. Sarswat and DRDO won't participate in a war, IAF and their hardware would.

BTW I doubt DRDO guys have heard a cardinal rule: Customer is always right

 

[Screambowl]

It is not about getting it in time, because even more advanced countries and their industries struggel a lot in getting modern developments ready in time at according to the budgets. My problem is, that there is no logical sense in the way DRDO is approaching the developments, that the management of the projects is highly biased wrt to doing things they "hope" they can do and that they often are not on the same line to the real requirements of our forces.
Imo it is simply silly if our industry developed things, wasting time and money, when that is not what our forces needs to defend the country.

But don't you think that will not suit the name of the organization Defense Research and Development Organization. I am sure they only work on those projects which can be realized. If they are not able to develop them even through research then either there is an infrastructure problem or lack of brain power. They won't be able to say what projects they can develop by researching and what not unless until they try their hand and see what is the difficulty level. Isn't it?

 

[sancho]

But don't you think that will not suit the name of the organization Defense Research and Development Organization. I am sure they only work on those projects which can be realized. If they are not able to develop them even through research then either there is an infrastructure problem or lack of brain power. They won't be able to say what projects they can develop by researching and what not unless until they try their hand and see what is the difficulty level. Isn't it?

Take Kaveri as an example, they THOUGHT they can do it, but badly failed and now trying to make it up by searching for other applications for the engine, be it AURA or AMCA. I said it yesterday in BR as well, for IAF it might had been more interesting if DRDO would co-develop a NG AL 41 and could use that engine and develop a single engine AMCA, while providing maximum system commonality to FGFA and benefiting from the experience of that project, instead of trying something totally new, by developing upwards from LCA techs and systems to AMCA.
But obviously DRDO don't want that, because even if they would have co-developed the AL 41, it still will mainly be an Russian engine and they couldn't bagg about having developed an indigenous engine. Same reason why we went for a naval Tejas, or not for AMCA at all. Not because they are needed, or highly capable, but because they are indigenous and for me, that's simply not a good reason.
I want to best arms and techs for our forces to protect the country, not the most shiny developments for our industry, even if the outcome is just modest.

 

[Screambowl]

Take Kaveri as an example, they THOUGHT they can do it, but badly failed and now trying to make it up by searching for other applications for the engine, be it AURA or AMCA. I said it yesterday in BR as well, for IAF it might had been more interesting if DRDO would co-develop a NG AL 41 and could use that engine and develop a single engine AMCA, while providing maximum system commonality to FGFA and benefiting from the experience of that project, instead of trying something totally new, by developing upwards from LCA techs and systems to AMCA.
But obviously DRDO don't want that, because even if they would have co-developed the AL 41, it still will mainly be an Russian engine and they couldn't bagg about having developed an indigenous engine. Same reason why we went for a naval Tejas, or not for AMCA at all. Not because they are needed, or highly capable, but because they are indigenous and for me, that's simply not a good reason.
I want to best arms and techs for our forces to protect the country, not the most shiny developments for our industry, even if the outcome is just modest.

I think Kaveri is a research engine which is totally new research from scratch as you said but what is new and how does it is different from others and if it was a success they would have put it on the aircraft and if it does not come out as expected, it is still a research engine. Like crystal blade technology was developed without any assistance, was learnt from Kaveri project.
Plus if you compare GE F404 with kaveri, Kaveri is shorter and produces more thrust than GE F404


AMCA is too far as in reality right now. It will take them more than a decade to develop it.

 

[sancho]

Plus if you compare GE F404 with kaveri, Kaveri is shorter and produces more thrust than GE F404

Not realy, the recent reports said Kaveri only offers around 49kN dry and around 71kN wet thrust, while even the F404 offers 55kN dry and 85kN wet thrust, not to mention a lower weight. We also heared that there are issues with the hot section and the reliability of the parts of this section, which is why we most likely go for a French core, integrated into the Kaveri K9.

AMCA is too far as in reality right now. It will take them more than a decade to develop it.

Fully agree, but it depends on how we do that project, compared to the mess we made during LCA development. Let me give you 2 examples

Option 1)

We use the Rafale deal to bind Dassault, Thales and Snecma as partners of the AMCA project too and increase the number of Rafales in return.

- Dassault would assist in design and navalising of the fighter, could even base it on the Rafale M
- Thales could be a co-developing partner for NG GaN AESA radar and avionics
- Snecma obviously a partner for Kaveri engine

With experienced partners in key positions of the developments, based on production principles we learn through Rafale licence production, the whole development will be much easier and faster, while the outcome could be even more capable too.


Option 2)

Instead of developing an AMCA from LCA upwards, we develop a version from FGFA downwards, by using common engine, systems and partially even design features.

- single engine design, made by ADA/HAL with Sukhoi as a consultancy partner
- AL 41 with SC & TVC for a single engine fighter, co-developed for FGFA and AMCA
- customised cockpit design for FGFA and AMCA
- customised avionic package for FGFA and AMCA
- customised weapon package for FGFA and AMCA

The main difference would be the design, that would be based on FGFA, but not only a re-design and totally new. Russia might even be interested to get it as a low end solution for themselfs, based on the Pak Fa systems. The development time would be dramatically reduced, because radar, engine and most avionics will be developed even now, for Pak Fa / FGFA.


As you can see, the more we go for commonality with Rafale or FGFA, the more would an AMCA project benefit, but since ADA/DRDO and waaaay too many Indians prefer "indigenous" fighter projects with techs completely build in India, by Indian companies, we will need more time, we will face more problems and we will have more delays and failures during the project.

 

[Screambowl]

Not realy, the recent reports said Kaveri only offers around 49kN dry and around 71kN wet thrust, while even the F404 offers 55kN dry and 85kN wet thrust, not to mention a lower weight. We also heared that there are issues with the hot section and the reliability of the parts of this section, which is why we most likely go for a French core, integrated into the Kaveri K9.

But I read that F404 produces 78kN of max thrust while the modified F404 RM12 by volvo produces max 85kN. If we compare Kaveri with non-modified F404. Kaveri is doing good as powerplant. Reliability could be challenged.

Fully agree, but it depends on how we do that project, compared to the mess we made during LCA development. Let me give you 2 examples

Option 1)

We use the Rafale deal to bind Dassault, Thales and Snecma as partners of the AMCA project too and increase the number of Rafales in return.

- Dassault would assist in design and navalising of the fighter, could even base it on the Rafale M
- Thales could be a co-developing partner for NG GaN AESA radar and avionics
- Snecma obviously a partner for Kaveri engine

With experienced partners in key positions of the developments, based on production principles we learn through Rafale licence production, the whole development will be much easier and faster, while the outcome could be even more capable too.


Option 2)

Instead of developing an AMCA from LCA upwards, we develop a version from FGFA downwards, by using common engine, systems and partially even design features.

- single engine design, made by ADA/HAL with Sukhoi as a consultancy partner
- AL 41 with SC & TVC for a single engine fighter, co-developed for FGFA and AMCA
- customised cockpit design for FGFA and AMCA
- customised avionic package for FGFA and AMCA
- customised weapon package for FGFA and AMCA

The main difference would be the design, that would be based on FGFA, but not only a re-design and totally new. Russia might even be interested to get it as a low end solution for themselfs, based on the Pak Fa systems. The development time would be dramatically reduced, because radar, engine and most avionics will be developed even now, for Pak Fa / FGFA.


As you can see, the more we go for commonality with Rafale or FGFA, the more would an AMCA project benefit, but since ADA/DRDO and waaaay too many Indians prefer "indigenous" fighter projects with techs completely build in India, by Indian companies, we will need more time, we will face more problems and we will have more delays and failures during the project.

I'll add option 3 to it.

Fuselage, thrust vectoring, stealth taken from FGFA while avionics and engine from dassault. As we did in sukhoi MKI, it also has european avionics. The indigenous would be mounting a european engine in a redesigned russian fuselage.

one more thing. If we use european engine, will it be possible to add thrust vectoring?

 

[Paan Singh]

DODO must be scrapped to dustbin and HAL must be headed with some airforce chief.

 

[IND151]

Not realy, the recent reports said Kaveri only offers around 49kN dry and around 71kN wet thrust, while even the F404 offers 55kN dry and 85kN wet thrust, not to mention a lower weight. We also heared that there are issues with the hot section and the reliability of the parts of this section, which is why we most likely go for a French core, integrated into the Kaveri K9.




Fully agree, but it depends on how we do that project, compared to the mess we made during LCA development. Let me give you 2 examples

Option 1)

We use the Rafale deal to bind Dassault, Thales and Snecma as partners of the AMCA project too and increase the number of Rafales in return.

- Dassault would assist in design and navalising of the fighter, could even base it on the Rafale M
- Thales could be a co-developing partner for NG GaN AESA radar and avionics
- Snecma obviously a partner for Kaveri engine

With experienced partners in key positions of the developments, based on production principles we learn through Rafale licence production, the whole development will be much easier and faster, while the outcome could be even more capable too.


Option 2)

Instead of developing an AMCA from LCA upwards, we develop a version from FGFA downwards, by using common engine, systems and partially even design features.

- single engine design, made by ADA/HAL with Sukhoi as a consultancy partner
- AL 41 with SC & TVC for a single engine fighter, co-developed for FGFA and AMCA
- customised cockpit design for FGFA and AMCA
- customised avionic package for FGFA and AMCA
- customised weapon package for FGFA and AMCA

The main difference would be the design, that would be based on FGFA, but not only a re-design and totally new. Russia might even be interested to get it as a low end solution for themselfs, based on the Pak Fa systems. The development time would be dramatically reduced, because radar, engine and most avionics will be developed even now, for Pak Fa / FGFA.


As you can see, the more we go for commonality with Rafale or FGFA, the more would an AMCA project benefit, but since ADA/DRDO and waaaay too many Indians prefer "indigenous" fighter projects with techs completely build in India, by Indian companies, we will need more time, we will face more problems and we will have more delays and failures during the project.

In the end it will be a JV and not an indigenously developed fighter.

AMCA must be indigenously developed-at least it's most critical systems like engine, ASEA radar,FBW etc.

We have to be self-reliant in this area.

I think we should build and induct limited numbers of AMCA fighters belonging to 4.5th gen.(using foreign engine if needed while continuing research on AMCA compatible Kaveri. For this we should test Kaveri on specially build test beds or limited number cargo planes/light bomber featuring 2xforeign engines and 2xNAFB Kaveri.)


Then we should evaluate the performance of these 4.5th gen AMCAs, improve the AMCA further and introduce 4.75 gen AMCA powered by Kaveri(tested on test beds or limited number cargo planes/light bomber)

Then, the final phase, we improve AMCA further and introduce 5th gen AMCA with indigenously built advanced Kaveri with all features of stealth fighter engines like S-duct, hidden blades etc. the experience we will gain in FGFA and Rafael will be utilized here.

 

[sancho]

But I read that F404 produces 78kN of max thrust while the modified F404 RM12 by volvo produces max 85kN. If we compare Kaveri with non-modified F404. Kaveri is doing good as powerplant. Reliability could be challenged.

Depends on version of course and I was talking about the latest that is used in MK1.

If we use european engine, will it be possible to add thrust vectoring?

The Eurojet 200 already has a 3D TVC version under development, for Rafales M88 TVC seems to be an option for the future too, so that is not a big dealbreaker, but also not the most important feature anyway.

We have to be self-reliant in this area.

Self reliance has nothing to do with developing it alone, but with developing things according to our needs and requirements! Any indigenous project will be developed according to our needs and requirements, no matter how much partners we have during the development stage. Take Dhruv as an example, designed with German help, engine and avionics with French and Israeli help and still the first step for India to be self reliant and so far still the most successful indigenous project.