The ADA Tejas Mk1 Twitters Prof Prodyut Das

       There was much Twittering on the subject of the Tejas following a Podcast by Commodore Maolanakar. Subsequently The Commodore took the trouble to put down his agenda I thought his note was important enough to put down my viewpoints. We differ but our aim I feel is identical i.e – to see the Tejas in large scale service and that the AMCA project does not drift down the same dismal path. The Commodore’s points  are in italics on the top of each section.   

    1.  A lot of hard work and includes permanent gains well beyond specific capabilities visible in the current Tejas Mk1 platform

The equivalent of 80,000 crore has been spent. It is expected that there will be visible  permanent gains. It is the denominator of forty years that diminishes the achievement. We have buildings and facilities and computers etc but we have not “built” the people or “skill”. Without the people all is nothing.

One visible indication of “people” or “skill” not having developed is if you examine the canard location of the Tejas Mk2 and compare it with the care and attention and caution that the Chief Designers of Gripen / Viggen, the Eurofighter and Rafale took -even by accepting penalties in drag and weight-to avoid flow problems to the engine (s). The Tejas Mk2 layout as shown at various Air shows will walk in to a hornet’s nest  of development problems. ADA creates its own problems. The Vayu issue I/2022 should have some details of my comments.

 2.      Elevate the current discussion from turn /climb or school boyish weapons to why>what> which are we building.

 We should really be discussing specifications which are too “cut and paste” to result in the best suited weapons at the lowest costs. The dilemma for India is what is better-“World standard “specs” which makes the weapon unavailable or is it better to have something “third best” but affordable and available. We have the expertise; what is required is  honest and mutually respected interaction between all the stakeholders. In my blog there is a piece "Lessons from the Bekaa Valley" which amplifies the idea I have mentioned here.

Finally when the blunders are "school boyish" then school boyish figures are sufficient to illustrate the magnitude of the mistake. 

 Food for thought: The Podcast incident raises the possibility that the airframe is grossly overdesigned. The undercarriage which popped out at 600 kts where the design limit speed was for 280 kts. My “back of the envelope” calculations shows that the undercarriage was subjected to perhaps three times the ultimate load. The last time, in my knowledge, an aircraft had this kind of a situation- a UP Govt Beechcraft in 1970s- the undercarriage and the wings were ripped off. Is this a case of gross overdesign i.e. overweight ?

At the same time you mention that the landing loads needed strengthening of the airframe. This raises questions as to is the strength (weight) has gone into the wrong places?

Be assured that the Podcasts- though mainly w. r. t. testing- are most carefully gleaned.

  3.      Essentially towards refining our core concepts/process there by ensuring virtuous         continuously improving weapons development cycle agnostic to weapons development.

 This aim is noble but beyond our - at least my -capability. The Tejas delays were highly avoidable. We / I can do little except to honestly flag the issues and raise awareness. Political will and ownership -especially where the PSUs are the dominant player -is the key requirement . Regretfully 1964 to 2014 were the years of Drought and Blight in this respect.

 4.      To ensure that lessons of the past are not forgotten and need to be re-learnt the hard way.

Amen!

5.      To demonstrate that the people involved are not just a bunch of musty/incorrigible Govt. employees as so parties attempt to portray.

I think you have a job of work to do.  This is the matter of lengthy debate but I will give you a few questions to ponder.

 1.      Why was HAL overlooked and an “yet to be born” organization entrusted to develop a critical MiG 21 replacement? The historiography shows that personal egos had more to do with it. 

2.      Why was ADA then made dependent on HAL? It is IR 101 that this is a recipe for trouble and hostility as was experienced.

3.      When TEN years later when Tejas progress was well behind the schedule promised at the time of getting the sanctions no alternate effort was generated . An  old tactics is to make the project too big to be shut down. ADA ,of course , could not be shut down . Good for ADA but for India? Think hard- who/whom benefited the most from this programme? Individuals?  ADA?  DRDO?  The Armed Forces? India? Be Honest.

 4.      The ADA got the project sanctioned with SR Valluri and the experienced Raj Mahindra as the Chief Designer. Two years later by which time Mahindra had been working in Indian Defence for forty years-questions were raised in Parliament reportedly by Suresh Kalamadi about his qualifications, citizenship, the nationality of his wife etc. Though exonerated of all charges VS Arunachalam had him eased out and replaced by Kota Harinarayana. This was coincidence or a crafty move to land the project and have it in control? I consider this unethical.  No problems even then – If  the promises were delivered. 

Do you see a parallel between the way Raj Mahindra's removal and Nambi Narayan's career being ruined? What is yr. comment? No matter which Power was involved it was our Govt. that remove these  experienced assets.  

It is interesting that VS Arunachalam the SA/DRDO chief- for TWO terms was later suspected to be an US mole in the Cabinet. He too was exonerated and as last heard is a tenure Professor in the US. Another interesting facet of VS Arunachalam's tenure as DRDO Chief was that he -as a much younger man became SA and DRDO Chief  superseding APJ Abdul Kalam who was older than him. APJ Abdul Kalam became DRDO Chief after Arunachalam.

Difficulties and shortage of funds ae "chaff" and "flares" i.e. decoys or squid's ink! There is more than what meets the eye.

 You have admitted that there were technical errors. I differ in that they were Blunders.

1.                          Dr. Kota did his Ph.D  on Parametric Design of a Fighter Aircraft. Yet the LCA had a fuselage                 length of 13.2 Mts. when the other F 404 engine fighters had fuselage length between 14.2 to                 4.5 mts. Similarly for the AR of 1.8.  Despite many lectures on the aircraft's technical                              marvels we have had no explanation so far on these very interesting point. Where was the                     “Oversight” and inputs by eminent scientists and  academicians mentioned in                                             the tweets? It did not require  Rocket Science. The Air Force during PDR in 1989 pointed out              exactly the problems we faced when  the hardware was produced.

2.                          Why did the Committee authorize development as “a technology demonstrator” again on a yet                 to  be developed platform? Bureaucratic adroitness rather than sound engineering perhaps? It                 appears to me  that the aim    was it get the project at any cost? The money was public. I am                     sure no Private player would have  funded such a go ahead. The decision was dreadful as                         has been shown. Aerospace Professionals, when they make Technology Demonstrators, usually             cobble  together existing assemblies ,systems and parts to get something up and                                         flying quick. The  Rockwell DASA X31 used bits from the F 18/F 16/ Cessna                                         Citation etc etc.. The Concorde technology demonstrator had a girder fuselage and                 a                 fixed u/c! The TD cannot be a major project in itself. 

3.                      The combination of a new plain delta with a new FBW meant neither could be tested until both              were ready. was a disaster.  Any Chief  Designer material would have seen that. Even the                       Sino/Pak FC 17 avoided that trap. The F 16  designer Harry Hillaker had said circa 1976 i.e. well             before the LCA was  conceived-  in a magazine interview “ went for RSS ( Relaxed Static                 Stability) instead of full instability because if things went wrong we  could rely on the Stabilizer”.          The F16  “Stab” was increased in size by 40% when the inevitable problems surfaced.                              Common sense and endless Plan Bs is the Chief Designer job.

        I could go on.

           Further  In your phrase “just a bunch musty / incorrigible” Government employees etc. I fear                 you  are you are not only putting abusive words into the questioners mouths but                             using a broad tar brush .  

        The people are talking ONLY about ADA. 

         We are all proud of ISRO.  DRDOs missile programme runs smoothly. CAB’s Dr. Christopher in a         lively and enthusiastic discussion was advised in 2007 that the Embraer was going to be too small.         He went ahead with Embraer. He delivered within reasonable delay, the country has  AWACS                 capability and now, as discussed the Embraer is too small and we are going for the Airbus because         after all a bigger platform was always needed. No issues! all in about 15 years without                             fanfare. ANY attacks on CABS by people? It is being made out as if any  criticism of ADA                     as an attack on DRDO/ India and is anti national.  

        6.       Only then would we be able attract the best talent today without waiting for some elusive utopian state of affairs to be achieved. 

With professionalism and honesty we can do much with what we have. Who is waiting for Uptopia? The other wings of DRDO have delivered .The Private sector participation-ab initio- from the request for proposal stage- is a solution we are delaying.  However the present beneficiaries of status quo have been opposing this by subtle means viz Bharat Forges tribulations with its howitzers. 

         7.      Finally, to raise the expectation of our citizen and lead to informed questioning and accountability. Collaterally -convey the message initially to all involved that mere propaganda won’t cut it any more.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. ADA has created its own enemies. Before ADA whoever had heard of IOC1, IOC2 , FOC1 etc . Today ADA has very little credibility:  

        8.      Was there Ethical and Financial Turpitude- which your view is that it is unthinkable?

 My view is that the intrigues that went behind the creation of ADA was most unedifying to say the least. The intrigues as I see them were for personal ego clashes-the combatants apparently had long history of personal animosities - which did the project no good.  

I seem to recall also that there is mention in the PAC114th report of dissatisfaction that the financial records of the transactions with vendors in the ‘80s and early ‘90s were not complete. Incidentally I have always held the view that whilst financial turpitude is condemnable we can tackle Financial losses ,if any, at leisure but delays are irreparable damage. 

Professional Turpitude? If the programme deliverables is delayed repeatedly then countless repeated “white lies”, as you call them, it certainly becomes professional turpitude.

I will add a few points of my own. 

1.       Your view is that the same people who made the “mistakes” should rectify them. In this particular case I completely disagree That option was long past. 

        We must differentiate between mistakes and blunders. Generally the people who made the blunders are the worst people to employ to rectify for the following general observations from my personal experience: 

i)                The people who made the blunders did so because of lack of requisite knowledge in the first instance. 

ii)               They have a vested interest in not having the errors corrected because the solutions are often simple and if implemented would show the perpetrators in a bad light; It is human nature. 

iii)             You, not me, have spoken of “witch hunt” and “burning at the stakes”. Nothing will be gained by that. However, purges are necessary because if left with influence, the people who committed the blunders will obstruct rectification tooth and nail. This is probably what is ailing the Tejas development.   

iv)             Money is not a problem. ISRO succeed so brilliantly with so little. A lot was due to the “hands on engineers” like "Nambi" Narayan and Abdul Kalam as Chief Designers. 

There is much more but I stop here. 

Commodore  Maolankar Pl. continue with your Podcasts. I literally hung on yr. every word. Thanks!

Podcasts Organizers. Pl. include the transcripts because yr. Effort is valuable “word by word”.