Know Your 'Rafale'

[Armand2REP]

That may be in French service, not in Indian service. Wait until you get figures from Indian service.
The service-ability will be much higher in France due to far better spares support and technical support.

Even M2000 in IAF has servicability rates approaching 90%.

 

[sgarg]

Even M2000 in IAF has servicability rates approaching 90%.

September 2014: State of the fleet. AIN reports that a quarter of India's Mirage 2000 fleet is grounded because a contract for spares has been stuck in the bureaucracy for years. This means some planes are scavenged for parts.

India’s Fighter Upgrades: Mirage 2000s Grounded Parts, Waiting Upgrades

 

[bennedose]

shiv aroor author of ;livefist said this at BR

one of his better posts

Akshay - Shiv Aroor joined defence reporting 10 years later than "shiv" of BRF who has been on BR almost since its inception. They are two different people.

I should know - I am shiv on BRF and got on board in 1997, shortly after the site was founded

 

[sgarg]

same for Mirages too.!!

Source please. You seem to know everything about IAF, yet you were in 4th standard at the time of Kargil. I was active on forums when you were in 4th standard.

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

Parrikar Opens Door To Mini-MRCA

SOURCE: SP Guide Publications



After the recent turbulence over the MMRCA, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has signalled the possibility of a separate single engine fighter jet platform replacing India's MiG-21s in the event that the LCA Tejas is not up to the task. In a comment (as part of an interview) that has dumbfounded observers still digesting the implications of the MMRCA's purported demise and the hard-nosed decision to purchase 36 flyaway Rafales directly from Dassault Aviation's French facility, aviation circles are aflutter with precisely what the Minister meant.

With no complete clarity on the full numbers of Rafales India intends to operate, the possibility of yet another fighter type being added to the inventory (albeit replacing the legacy MiG-21 and the enormous nationwide infrastructure available for its upkeep) is intriguing to say the least. For one thing, it casts questions over the government's own confidence in the much derided LCA Tejas platform, an aircraft currently in its home stretch and expected to power into squadron service in the visible future.

On the other hand, the suggestion that the LCA isn't up to the job and might need to be replaced by another aircraft for acquisition in high numbers could spark bemusement, if not interest, in firms like Lockheed-Martin and Saab for the F-16 and Gripen, the only two platforms in the M-MRCA that were powered by single engines. This could be an interesting space to watch.

Parrikar Opens Door To Mini-MRCA | idrw.org

 

[bose]

LCA Mark I & II are more than capable to replace Mig - 21

 

[akshay m]

Akshay - Shiv Aroor joined defence reporting 10 years later than "shiv" of BRF who has been on BR almost since its inception. They are two different people.

I should know - I am shiv on BRF and got on board in 1997, shortly after the site was founded

ha so you area journo too/??



maybe you should post here more frequently tooo

 

[Ray]

Oh yeah!!! Why would russia part away its technology in say a money spinning missile like Astra? When they did not do a technology transfer for T-90 how can i believe that they did for Astra?

Why would Russia help India in developing BMD when it is trying hard to sell S-300/S-400?

Why would Russia help DRDO to build Akash when it has similar systems to offer for India?

Russians did not give Brahmos for Free. They have extracted each and every penny from it.

And why is DRDO inspite of receiving all blueprints from Russia(as per you) are still taking years to go from Agni - 1 to Agni - 5? Do you understand the technological challenges which DRDO faced to develop while going from say agni -3 to agni -5?

Russia has co-operated in certain areas. That Does not make it IP owner of the Missile technology which DRDO scientist have worked hard to reach at.Respect the scientist who have given us strategic arms to defend against.

Why would they?

Geostrategy, that is why.

It maybe worth noting, just for starters, that Prithvi is a single-stage missile with a liquid-propellant engine, made by the Soviet KB Isayev (derivative of S2.711V engine).

Now, let me answer you on Agni.

Stunted development

The problem with India's missile development programme is that there is no clear strategic policy or urgency regarding deployment. India is the only country in the world that has developed a range of missiles but which remain either on the drawing board or have got stuck at the demo stage.

In the case of virtually every Agni series missile, after a couple of tests the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) declared that development was complete. The impression conveyed was the missile was ready to be handed over to the army. But then the DRDO went in for an improved version, for the cycle to begin all over again.

Missiles need to be tested dozens of times under all sorts of operational conditions to validate their performance and reliability. Take the Agni-IV, which failed its first test in December 2010. This missile was not tested again until November 15, 2011.

It's as if the scientists are sent on a long holiday after each launch. This is not how von Braun or Sergei Korolyov worked to build strategic missiles for the US and Russia. This approach will not ensure the reliability of India's missile force, but it drives many Indians, well, ballistic.

5000 kilometre red line
Who knows, perhaps the scientists are indeed being sent on extended holidays. The chief reason why India's ICBM development has proceeded at the speed of snails is intense American pressure. According to the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, in the late 1990s India had to postpone the Agni test flights on more than one occasion under US influence.

It is also well-known that back in 1992 the US had asked President Boris Yeltsin to stop the transfer of Russian cryogenic engines although the complex cryogenic technology is of little use in ballistic missiles.

There are two reasons why the US wants to scuttle India's ICBM plans – one, America's hopelessly inadequate (some say unworkable) missile defence systems will have the additional task of monitoring Indian ICBMs. Secondly, plain arrogance – a former Cold War opponent shouldn't be allowed to develop missiles that could target good ole American folks. America has, therefore, drawn a red line that it will not tolerate India crossing, and that line is the 5000 kilometre mark.

It is in this backdrop that the Chinese, despite their usually shrill rhetoric, were right when last week they claimed that under NATO pressure India had limited the Agni's range.
Missile impossible: why the Agni-V falls short | Russia & India Report

Some news on Indian missile development

India built the medium-range Agni missile by taking a first-stage rocket from a small space launcher and combining it with guidance technology developed by the German space agency. The effort dates from the 1960s. U.S. scientists from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) launched the first small rocket from Indian soil - an American Nike Apache - in 1963. "We were waiting for the payload to arrive when we saw a guy on a bicycle coming up an unpaved road," recalls one NASA veteran of the launch. "He had the payload in the basket."

One of India's ablest students was A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. While training in the United States, he visited the space centers where the U.S. Scout rocket was conceived and was being flown. Kalam returned home to build India's first space rocket, the Satellite Launch Vehicle - SLV-3, a carbon copy of the Scout. NASA made Kalam's task easier by supplying unclassified technical reports on the Scout's design.

France supplied the next technology infusion. In the 1970s, its Societe Europeene de Propulsion gave India the technology for the Viking high-thrust liquid rocket motor, used on the European Space Agency's Ariane satellite launcher. The Indian version, the "Vikas," became the second stage of the large rocket India launched in October. Liquid fuel technology also helped India develop the Prithvi missile, which can reach Islamabad. Derived from a Soviet-supplied anti-aircraft missile, the Prithvi became the second stage of the Agni missile.

But aid from America and France was soon dwarfed by aid from Germany. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Germany helped India with three indispensable missile technologies: guidance, rocket-testing and composite materials. Earmarked for the space program, all were equally useful for building missiles.

In 1978, Germany installed an interfero-meter on an Indian rocket to measure, from the ground, a rocket's angle of flight. Four years later, India tested its own version. From 1982 to 1989, Germany helped India build a navigation system for satellites based on a Motorola microprocessor. During the same period, and following the same steps, India developed its own navigation system for missiles and rockets based on the same microprocessor.

Germany also tested India's first large rocket in a wind tunnel at Cologne-Portz; it helped India build its own rocket test facility; and it trained Indians in glass and carbon fiber composites at Stuttgart and Braunschweig. These lightweight, heat-resistant fibers are ideal for missile nozzles and nose cones. To help India use the fibers, Germany provided the documentation for a precision filament winding machine, a sensitive item now controlled for export by other countries, including the United States.

India's quest for imports provoked a row with the United States in 1992. The Russian space agency tried to sell India advanced cryogenic engines for India's most ambitious space rocket, the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV). The United States opposed the deal, rejecting India's argument that the engines were only suitable for space launchers. "If you can do space launches, you can do ballistic missiles," a Commerce Department analyst told the Risk Report. The analyst's stance is buttressed by a CIA report declassified in 1993. It said that a space launcher "could be converted relatively quickly by technologically advanced countries ... to a surface to surface missile."

In 1993, India's procurement effort surfaced again. A Massachusetts company was charged with violating U.S. export laws by selling India components for a hot isostatic press. The press, which India obtained through the company's Scottish subsidiary, can be used to shape advanced composites for missile nose cones.

The question now is what India will do next. If it perfects a lightweight nuclear warhead, which the CIA says it is working on, the Agni missile could carry bombs to Beijing. And if India perfects an accurate long-range guidance system, its new space rocket could become an intercontinental ballistic missile. Success would change the strategic equation in Asia and make India a world nuclear power.

But India still needs crucial help. A recent Pentagon study cites composites, electronics, computers, sensors and navigation equipment as some of the technologies in which India is still weak.
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/missiles.html

 

[bennedose]

ha so you area journo too/??



maybe you should post here more frequently tooo

I am no journo. I am only a foolish jingo like everyone else. But my handle is shiv, not shiv aroor and I have been around from when shiv aroor was still a twinkle in his father's eye. I would appreciate not being confused with shiv aroor or being thought of as a journo.

 

[ersakthivel]

A Bold Political Decision for a Crucial Defence Need | Vivekananda International Foundation

The saga for procurement of 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) actually began in 2001, gathered steam in 2007 and was stuck in price negotiations for the past three years. Meanwhile, the IAF's combat fighter jet strength was depleting fast. Over the past couple of years, the Air Force top brass was alarmed enough to tell the government that its conventional combat edge even against Pakistan was in danger of being lost.

So last week, hours before Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarked on his three-nation tour, a political decision was taken to explore the option of buying Rafale jets through a government-to-government (G-to-G) contract with France. The breakthrough will now allow the IAF to induct Rafale fighter jets in a two year time frame and at least partially make up for its depleting combat jet strength.

However, it is the next step in aircraft procurement that will be watched intently. Will this decision of going for G-to-G mean that all future purchases of this magnitude will be handled in this manner? If so, what happens to the much-touted Make in India programme? The roadmap is not clear but Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar gave enough hints about what the government is thinking in an interview that this writer co-hosted on Monday for Doordarshan (https://t.co/jktB9j7EYI).

Not surprisingly, skeptics have hit out at the decision. The criticism has ranged from "it's too little too late," to "it goes against the Make in India concept." But both Modi and Parrikar were clear that they had to put the interest of the IAF above everything else and which what they have done. Mind you, procuring 36 Rafales is just a stop-gap arrangement to arrest the rapidly falling numbers in IAF's combat fleet.

Lauding the Prime Minister for taking a bold decision in breaking the Rafale deadlock, Parrikar said future large procurements for the IAF and indeed for the armed forces at large, will have to be G-2-G but Make in India will also get a look in for other projects. For instance, IF more Rafales, were to be bought--over and above 36 decided now--Dassault could be asked to manufacture them in India. Even if any other lighter aircraft was to be selected, the pre-condition will be a tie-up with an Indian company or consortium.

It is to Parrikar's credit that he decided to think differently on a knotty issue and suggested a way out to the Prime Minister. In fact, in less than six months after taking over, Parrikar has studied various complex issues dogging the defence ministry and has come to his own conclusions on what needs to be done. By his own admission, Parrikar spent the first four months as defence minister in taking inputs from a range of experts both within and outside the MoD before making up his mind.

In his review, Parrikar also found that the bureaucracy in the ministry—both civil and military--was sitting on some 400-odd big and small projects that are critical to the three armed forces. Without getting into details, he said: "The first thing I did was to look at projects that are stuck at various stages of clearances since the most common complaint across the board was 'nothing moves' in the MoD." A thorough review revealed that nearly one-third of the 400-odd projects were now irrelevant. So they were discarded. About 50 projects were accelerated since they were of critical importance.

A decade-long impasse in defence acquisitions has been broken with the decision on Rafale, raising renewed hope in the sector. Parrikar has brought in a sense of purpose in the notoriously obdurate MoD bureaucracy. "There was no control over the system. There were no reviews, no feedback and there was no fear of punishment for non-performance. An important ministry like Defence cannot run like this," Parrikar said in an interview. So he has now instututed a time-bound performance review system aimed at speedy clearances and implementation of projects.

Hopefully, the new measures will revitalise the functioning of the crucial arm of the government in coming months.

 

[power_monger]

Indian Missiles: Threat and Capability

This article is loaded with in-correct information.firstly

1) NASA uses Rocket engines from Russia for its rockets.Does it make it Russian?

2) Russians gave us technological blueprint for Fully cryogenic engine. Even though we have mastered the engine technology there,it is of little use as we cannot launch satellites weighing more than 2 tonne.There is the cactch. Both Russia and France(who had intially agreed to transfer cryogenic technology) very well knew this. ISRO plans to launch a rocket using semi-cryogenic technology in 2017 which is a critical technology. Niether Russia nor france would have agreed to part with suh technologies.

3) Its not like DRDO scientist launch a missile and sit idle for one year.Generally even when forst launch seems sucessfull,many subsytems would have shown in-adequete performance which would need time to relace as there is whole lot of testing due to its criticality. A car might stop due to faulty sub-sytem.But a missile would blast if there is faulty subsytems.Hence it takes long delay.

To give an example, When DRDO went from Agni - 3 to Agni 5 ,they wanted compposites which could withstand a temperature of 5000 degree from previous 3000 degree(Agni 3 reenttry temperature). This required special materials which can still keep sub-sytems inside missile at a temperature within 50 degree even when it is 5000 degree outside. Midhani took almost one year to come up with such material. A country which has been denied many technologies tend to take time for even small things.

4) We have performed Wind tunnel test for AMCA in america.That does not mean America is helping us.It just means we have in-adequete facilities in our country to perform such test.

The article yu have posted tries to put our achievment as borrowed and thus show it in in-significant. do not fall prey to such articles.

 

[Khagesh]

Even M2000 in IAF has servicability rates approaching 90%.

That is because IAF hardly much used the Mirages. Without using a capability you should be getting 100% serviceability. 90% implies a 10% deficit in serviceability, even when a platform is favoured beyond other platforms.

 

[Pulkit]

That is because IAF hardly much used the Mirages. Without using a capability you should be getting 100% serviceability. 90% implies a 10% deficit in serviceability, even when a platform is favoured beyond other platforms.

@Armand2REP
I will really like to know the source of the figures you two have been quoting here?

@Khagesh
Without using a capability you should be getting 100% serviceability. 90% implies a 10% deficit in serviceability,

Kindly elaborate.....

 

[Ray]

This article is loaded with in-correct information.firstly

1) NASA uses Rocket engines from Russia for its rockets.Does it make it Russian?

2) Russians gave us technological blueprint for Fully cryogenic engine. Even though we have mastered the engine technology there,it is of little use as we cannot launch satellites weighing more than 2 tonne.There is the cactch. Both Russia and France(who had intially agreed to transfer cryogenic technology) very well knew this. ISRO plans to launch a rocket using semi-cryogenic technology in 2017 which is a critical technology. Niether Russia nor france would have agreed to part with suh technologies.

3) Its not like DRDO scientist launch a missile and sit idle for one year.Generally even when forst launch seems sucessfull,many subsytems would have shown in-adequete performance which would need time to relace as there is whole lot of testing due to its criticality. A car might stop due to faulty sub-sytem.But a missile would blast if there is faulty subsytems.Hence it takes long delay.

To give an example, When DRDO went from Agni - 3 to Agni 5 ,they wanted compposites which could withstand a temperature of 5000 degree from previous 3000 degree(Agni 3 reenttry temperature). This required special materials which can still keep sub-sytems inside missile at a temperature within 50 degree even when it is 5000 degree outside. Midhani took almost one year to come up with such material. A country which has been denied many technologies tend to take time for even small things.

4) We have performed Wind tunnel test for AMCA in america.That does not mean America is helping us.It just means we have in-adequete facilities in our country to perform such test.

The article yu have posted tries to put our achievment as borrowed and thus show it in in-significant. do not fall prey to such articles.

I have been to the Prithivi site and I am aware of the works.

Thank you for your knowledge.

 

[power_monger]

I have been to the Prithivi site and I am aware of the works.

Thank you for your knowledge.

No one denies the involvement of Russians in indian missile development.Russian help is well known. Prithvi was one of our first missiles to be inducted way back in 1998. In general i am speaking of Agni series and late after. We have came long distance from being technologically dependent on Russians to independently develop it.

DRDO has come long way from being a lethargic institute till now.I agree that HAL has pretty much remained the same but there has been lot of positive changes in DRDO(atleast in area of missiles and radars).

 

[Khagesh]

@Khagesh
Without using a capability you should be getting 100% serviceability. 90% implies a 10% deficit in serviceability,

Kindly elaborate.....

Oh he was bluffing so I also bluffed. His bluff had some truth mixed in with a lot of lies and I just gave him his own medicine.

The little truth that I had on my side is:

Aero India 2011 & HAL (part 3 of 3) - www.acig.org

Aero India 2011 & HAL (part 3 of 3)
Contributed by Georg Mader
Apr 01, 2011 at 03:59 PM

<snip>

In the beginning of 2011, Georg Mader visited the Aero India 2011 exhibition and the HAL factory in Bengaluru, India. This is the third and final part of a three piece report, discussing work being performed at HAL Bengaluru.

According to sources on site, nine (8+1 trainer) have since been lost or severely damaged in accidents. Now over 20 years old, all Mirage 2000s airframes like the six present on Feb. 7th were explained to ACIG as already in their second inspection- and overhaul cycles. The two operating sqdns. at Gwalior would usually send the fighters to HAL every 12 years or 2000 flying-hours, but so far all IAF Mirage 2000s have undergone overhaul and modernisations only after the calendar, not because of reaching 2000 hours.

HAL's shop-personnel was proudly pointing to the fact, that even in the second cycle, "pratically no fatique or cracks are discovered in the very robust blended delta-structure, not the same case in the Jaguar-fleet for example."

Notice not just the number of hours were used also the life of 12 prescibed years would have given 24 years for the second overhaul cycle. But sent in at about 20.

For comparsion from the same report notice how extensively the Jaguars have been used. The damages to Jaguar engine blades is spoken off and attributed to low level flying they do and the fact that 1 out of 5 Jaguar airframes are displaying signs of stress.

OTOH, with Mirage 2000 an aircraft that was ostensibly acquired for taking on F-16s we had to settle for converting it to a ground attack role.

You dig deeper and the muck between the IAF and the French goes very deep and dark.

Not that I am against Rafale per-se. I am not. At least not before the count touches 60. After that the gloves come off. :thumb:

 

[Pulkit]

Oh he was bluffing so I also bluffed. His bluff had some truth mixed in with a lot of lies and I just gave him his own medicine.

The little truth that I had on my side is:

Aero India 2011 & HAL (part 3 of 3) - www.acig.org


Notice not just the number of hours were used also the life of 12 prescibed years would have given 24 years for the second overhaul cycle. But sent in at about 20.

For comparsion from the same report notice how extensively the Jaguars have been used. The damages to Jaguar engine blades is spoken off and attributed to low level flying they do and the fact that 1 out of 5 Jaguar airframes are displaying signs of stress.

OTOH, with Mirage 2000 an aircraft that was ostensibly acquired for taking on F-16s we had to settle for converting it to a ground attack role.

You dig deeper and the muck between the IAF and the French goes very deep and dark.

Not that I am against Rafale per-se. I am not. At least not before the count touches 60. After that the gloves come off. :thumb:

I agree with most of your statements.
On a lighter node I am against Rafale I Am I have been but my reasons are not the aircraft and its capability.

I do not want any furthers orders or not to exceed 60 at any cost.

 

[Punya Pratap]

Ray Sir, I request you to check the facts you have stated... I read a long time ago about the Prithvi Missile development story which I shall pull up when I can jog my memory enough to straighten out all the details and the sources there off. However in the meantime let me put the below facts for consideration that revolve around the ISRO's hunt for cryogenic engine :

New Delhi: Mission director K. Sivan kept his fingers firmly crossed in the mission control room at the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota on the morning of 5 January as the moment drew closer for the launch of the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle, or GSLV-D5.
The rocket, powered by India's indigenous cryogenic engine, had been tested and reviewed numerous times in the four months since its aborted launch on 19 August due to a crack in the fuel tank. After the 5 January launch, every step that the rocket cleared made Sivan a happier man. But he also became more anxious—after all, of the seven GSLV launches earlier, five had failed. It was only when the satellite GSAT-14 onboard the GSLV-D5 was inserted into a precise orbit that Sivan relaxed. "It was like the rebirth of GSLV," he said.

The search for cryogenic engine

The GSLV programme was started by Isro in response to India's mounting communications needs. By 1987, the government had approved the development of the second generation INSAT-2 series of satellites, weighing more than 2 tonnes. Isro wanted to develop a 2.5-tonne class of satellites and put them into a geostationary transfer orbit at 36,000km from Earth's surface.
Isro also wanted to make a vehicle that would be bigger, lighter and more efficient than its workhorse Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). There were three fuels options: earth storable, semi-cryogenic, and cryogenic.

Cryogenic engines, which use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as fuel and give the most thrust, are usually prepared for the "upper stages"—the last stage of the rocket—because this stage provides 50% of the velocity of 10.2km per second needed at the point of injection of a satellite. In 1986, at a cost of Rs.12 crore, Isro scientists began developing a one-tonne cryogenic engine to try and understand how to handle liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. At the same time, a design team was formed at Isro's Liquid Propulsion Centre at Mahendragiri in Tamil Nadu to come up with the design of a seven-tonne turbo-fed engine. Although this development boosted the confidence of Isro engineers, Isro knew that it couldn't wait much longer to develop the indigenous engine.

The Russian deal

It was then that Isro thought of procuring cryogenic engines from other countries. After rejecting offers from the US and France for both the sale of engines and transfer of technology, India approved an offer by the Soviet Union's Glavkosmos space agency in 1990. India sent eight scientists to Moscow to work with Soviet scientists. They worked there for 15 months, but did not have access to everything.
"The Russians were very secretive about everything, even though they had signed the technology transfer agreement. Discussions were limited, and the Indian scientists were never allowed to walk the labs freely; they needed clearance to move around the lab," said B.N. Suresh, former director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in Thiruvananthapuram. "Hence they couldn't learn very much."
Then, 15 months after the deal was signed, the US raised objections citing a violation of the international Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The West feared that cryogenic technology could be used by India to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which is rejected by Indian scientists.
Eventually, in 1993, Glavkosmos backed out of the deal and revoked the transfer of cryotechnology agreement. Under a renegotiated deal, Russia decided to provide four fully functional engines and two mock-ups. It also agreed to supply three more cryogenic engines at a cost of $9 million.
At this point, the Space Commission, which formulates and implements the Indian space programme, approved a Rs.280 crore project to develop an Indian cryogenic engine, the C12.
"We had to get back our people who were already working with the Russian scientists. Then we had to start on our own. They had made some sorts of drawings and designs and they were already working on the engines and fabrication processes with the Russian scientists," said U.R. Rao, former chairman at Isro. "But still, many things cannot be on paper since there are various processes we go through to make every step as accurate as possible."

Practical steps

Preparations were made for the first developmental flight of the GSLV-D1 with a procured Russian cryogenic third stage, planned for early 2001. A cryogenic upper stage (CUS) project had also speeded up the design and development of an indigenous engine to replace the Russian one.
"A lot of theoretical studies were conducted under E.V.S. Namboodiry, a propulsion expert who was in charge of studying the cryogenic engine with a team of experts. Something like 18 reports came out regarding cryogenic engine. But theories cannot give you a stage," said Suresh.
Isro scientists had to become adept in areas such as materials technology, powder metallurgy, welding technology and fabrication technology.

2009-14: Road to success

Even as scientists gained experience from GSLV launches with a Russian cryogenic upper stage engine, they worked feverishly on the indigenous version. In 2009, Isro concentrated on developing infrastructure like the propellant casting facility for solid boosters. That year, Isro reached a landmark when the indigenous cryogenic engine was tested at the Mahendragiri and cleared for a full flight.
But the launch of the flight—the first with an indigenous engine—the GSLV-D3 in April 2010, with a GSAT-4 satellite on board, failed.
The rocket deviated from its path and the vehicle was seen "tumbling" down by Isro scientists. "The thing with rocket launches is that there is not much difference between success and failure. We succeeded (in 2014), but a tiny glitch and we could have ended up in the Bay of Bengal," said R.V. Perumal, former director of the GSLV project.
The failure, a major disappointment to the nation, was caused by the fact that the cryogenic upper stage could not sustain ignition because the fuel booster turbo pump stopped working 293 seconds into the flight. The second developmental launch of the GSLV D-3 in December 2010 ended in an explosion due to a technical snag in the first stage.
"After the first failure (in 2010), the problem was that we could not recreate the cause of the failure, so it was hard to correct the problem," said Sivan. "So we listed out possible failures, all feasible reasons for the stopping of fuel booster pump, and took corrective actions for all of them."
"Even though we would test the engine and the ignition sequence on the ground, the conditions on the flight would be much different," said Sivan. For Isro, it now became necessary to create those conditions for testing. A high altitude test facility was built in Mahendragiri in 2012 to demonstrate successful ignition for simulated flight conditions. And after testing the system in those conditions, Isro modified the ignition sequence.
[/B]
Dr Ajey Lele, research fellow at IDSA, says why it's a great feat for India to indigenously develop a cryogenic engine and explains commercial viability.
Still, in August 2013, a GSLV-D5 launch was aborted at the eleventh hour after a leak was detected in the fuel booster pump. After decades of dogged engineering pursuit, this was an easier problem to solve for Isro. "When we went ahead with the flight after testing the engine in every possible condition, we were confident of success. We had arrived," said Sivan.

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

Interview : Rafale deal is great, numbers not so

It is an excellent move to sign a G2G deal on Rafale fighter aircraft but a ridiculous step if the government decides to restrict it to 36 jets, considering the size of the Indian Air Force, says former Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major. The request for proposal for purchase of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft was issued to six firms, including Dassault Aviation, when he was at the helm of affairs at IAF. Excerpts:

Q. What are your views on the government-to-government deal for acquisition of Rafale fighter jets?
We are adept at signing such deals as we have done it with the United States for C-17 Globemaster and the C-130J Super Hercules. It means that the RPF (request for proposal) for MMRCA will become irrelevant, and be cancelled. But the government must make it clear about how many (Rafale jets) will finally be acquired. If that number is only 36, it will be ridiculous because the idea is not to have too many types of aircraft for the IAF. The plan of the IAF was to have frontline squadrons of Su-30, MMRCA, Tejas and the FGFA (fifth generation fighter aircraft).It will be a nightmare to maintain a diverse inventory of fighters along with their spares and the supply chain. If we stop at 36, will be have another aircraft to perform the role of MMRCA?

Q. But the Rafale was rejected by many countries, even a wealthy nation like Saudi Arabia?
They could have rejected it for some reason or the other, but remember that the IAF adopted one of the most stringent selection processes to shortlist the Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon. The other countries rejected Rafale fighters for reasons which we are not aware of.

Q. And, acquiring these fighters off the shelf means no transfer of technology to Indian companies?
No country in the world will part with source codes and other strategic information as part of transfer of technology (TOT), but anything could happen if our government decides to acquire more of these fighters. If that happens, Dassault Aviation could select either a private enterprise or HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) as it already has a good infrastructure and a number of private entities supplying thousands of components and subsystems. And whether it is HAL or the private player, they will have about two to three years to build the infrastructure before these 36 fighters arrive in India. Don't forget that a private player can get the best employee from anywhere in the world, and pay them well, which is not the case with HAL because it is a defence public sector undertaking. So more qualified employees means better quality and faster manufacture of fighters.

Q. The defence minister says the IAF does not require a fleet of 42 squadrons, and could manage with fewer fighter jets because of better missile capability than in the past. Do you agree?
Partly, yes, but the number of squadrons depends on the threat perception, the weapons of adversaries and many other aspects.

If it is a scenario involving threats from two fronts, then we need 42 squadrons. Otherwise, with thirty nine and a half squadrons and the missiles, we could manage the threat. Now, we have only about 32 squadrons and that number must increase. There's no doubt about that (enhancing the number of squadrons).


Interview : Rafale deal is great, numbers not so | idrw.org

 

[Ray]

No one denies the involvement of Russians in indian missile development.Russian help is well known. Prithvi was one of our first missiles to be inducted way back in 1998. In general i am speaking of Agni series and late after. We have came long distance from being technologically dependent on Russians to independently develop it.

DRDO has come long way from being a lethargic institute till now.I agree that HAL has pretty much remained the same but there has been lot of positive changes in DRDO(atleast in area of missiles and radars).

Certain establishments of the DRDO has come to some sort of efficiency, while there are host of others who should actually be wound up or made collaborators with the private industry.

Can you explain how DRDO can make missiles that are of international standard (as you say with indigenous expertise) and yet was floundering with the anti tank missile NAG, which is not of such sophistry as, say, Agni ?

The design work on NAG started in 1988 and first tested in 1990.

It is now accepted but the work on NAMICA is still not through.