First DDMB meeting, chaired by HAL chief, Dr RK Tyagi (fourth from right), and co-charied by DRDO's Dr K Tamilmani (third from right)
By Ajai
Shukla
Business Standard, 23rd Mar 14
For
decades, Indian expertise in designing and building aircraft has developed
randomly, with isolated areas of excellence offset by large capability gaps in
important fields. Now a new government body has begun coordinating the holistic
development of the country’s aeronautical capability.
Just as the
Atomic Energy Commission oversees the field of nuclear energy, and the Space
Commission coordinates India’s space programmes, many believe that an empowered
Aeronautical Commission must coordinate and oversee the development of
capabilities, facilities and skilled human resources needed to design and build
aircraft, both military and commercial.
While an
Aeronautical Commission currently seems unlikely, the BK Chaturvedi Committee in
2012 recommended establishing an apex, multi-agency National Aeronautics Coordination Group (NACG),
chaired by the Secretary (Defence Production). Functioning below the NACG would
be the more hands-on and technology oriented Design & Development
Management Board (DDMB).
On
Thursday, the DDMB held its first meeting in Bangalore. Headed by Dr RK Tyagi,
Chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), it included key officials from
aerospace organisations like the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO); National
Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL).
Officials familiar
with the meeting told Business Standard that discussions centred on the need to
coordinate the R&D being conducted in different centres, since significant
portions of it were overlapping and redundant.
Says the
official, “It was highlighted that there are nine R&D centres within HAL
alone; BEL has its own R&D centre; so does NAL and other establishments of
the Department of Science & Technology. These are pursuing the same goals.”
In the
absence of coordination, laboratories are designing systems that have already been
developed elsewhere, and are even in operational service. E.g. HAL has already
fitted IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems in IAF fighters, which
electronically differentiate enemy aircraft from our own fighters, and block friendly
fire on the latter. Yet the DRDO is designing its own IFF system, as is a
private company, Mahindra Telephonics.
The DDMB also
discussed the need to create R&D test facilities in India. Crucially needed
are a high altitude test facility, and a flying test bed for aero engines. The
DRDO currently uses test facilities in Russia, paying almost Rs 150 crore for packing,
transporting and testing an engine there. Establishing a national test facility
in India, which development agencies could pay to use, would allow aero engines
to be developed more economically.
Another proposal
involved setting up of a Flight Dynamics Simulation Centre to analyse flight
regimes that India does not yet understand fully, such as the complex dynamics
of stalls and spins. It was suggested that R&D institutions should combine
forces to write the challenging software for these flight regimes, jointly establishing
software teams, control law teams, and a simulator complex.
“We need to
have a clear road map to take on the challenges… (that) range from basic and
applied research, involvement of academia, production, spotting and retaining
talent,” said Tyagi, who heads the DDMB.
Significantly,
the DDMB brings together competing agencies that have had difficult relations
in the past. The discordant rivalry between R&D agencies like DRDO and
production agencies like HAL has been widely reported. Yet, participants from
both those organisations told Business Standard that they were elated at the
prospect of joining forces.
“Planning
and working together is something that has never happened before. We have
always had energy; now, for the first time, we will also have synergy,” said a
DDMB member.
The initial
structures currently set up could see change. There is dichotomy in placing
both the NACG and DDMB under the MoD, while other ministries share
responsibility for aerospace development. The government’s Allocation of
Business Rules makes the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) responsible for
developing commercial aircraft, a task the MoCA has not seemed inclined to take
up. The project to develop a Regional Transport Aircraft (RTA) is being jointly
pursued by NAL/HAL without MoCA oversight.
“There is a
need to change the Allocation of Business Rules in order to bring rules in line
with reality”, points out a senior MoD official.
Rivals ? You make it look like you are writing about Lockheed and Boeing ! Govt should cut down one government lab per area. We cannot afford such rivals.
ReplyDeleteTaking a analogy/cue from the book "The Elephant Catchers" written by Subroto Bagchi, there are four kinds of folks who need to be there to pull defence industry out of this mess into a transformed future- the Ninjas, the Thought Leaders, the Coach and the Rain Makers. I see only Thought Leaders and possibly, at a stretch, a Coach here in this team. Where are the Rainmakers and Ninjas in the four agencies which make up this DDMB- you need technologists drawn from a wider industry canvas, including worthies from the private sector. Otherwise this will be just another Board.......seen many, one more this....
ReplyDeleteSo DUmb, Dodo, Nil and Over BEEL are joining forces to make plane- in 30-40 years it should be ready to be inducted.
ReplyDeleteBetter late than never! The strategic impetus of having one's own aero engine technology is probably realized by the Indian political class. And perhaps the belated realization by this US loving UPA II Government that the current US administration may have greater number of US citizens of Indian origin but Obama is bad news for India whichever way you look at it. The entire LCA program can ground to a halt without GE 414 engines. And Vlad the impaler is no friend either. Our lack of strategic independence reminds me of the AC DC song 'Got you by the balls' :).
ReplyDeleteSmall baby steps in the right direction. Things should be done on a war footing with clear time bound objectives.
ReplyDeleteColonel Shukla:
ReplyDeleteHow did the Chinese win the war? The Chinese failed to hold on to any Indian territory. The boundaries before and after the war remained the same.