Tag Archives: Committee

Drdo

Modernisation of DRDO

2 Comments

AUTHOR: NITI PIB BOT – MAY 9, 2015 http://www.niticentral.com//2015/05/09/modernisation-of-drdo-312496.html

Modernisation of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is a continuous process.

One of the major recommendations of Kelkar Committee report was to review the  functioning of DRDO. Accordingly, a Committee headed by Dr. P. Rama Rao was constituted by the Government for reviewing the functioning of DRDO.

The Committee submitted its report to the Government. After examination, the Government has implemented the following recommendations of the Committee:

• Nomination of Nodal Officers for structured interaction between DRDO and Services.

• Introduction of Integrated Financial Advice (IFA) Scheme for financial decentralization.

• Appointment of a dedicated Chief Controller for Human Resources (HR).

· Creation of Seven Technology Domain based Clusters headed by Director’s General,Restructuring of DRDO HQrs, Creation of Directorate of Systems Analysis and Modelling (SAM) and Directorate of Quality, Reliability and Safety (QR&S).

· Efforts have also been made to increase budget for Extramural Research as recommended by the Committee.

Further,a note has been initiated by DRDO for approval of the Cabinet for:

· Creation of empowered Defence Technology Commission (DTC).

· Creation of a Commercial Arm of DRDO.

· Renaming of Director General, DRDO as Chairman, DRDO.

· Full scale implementation of IFA scheme and creation of posts thereto.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar in a written reply to Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi in Lok Sabha today.

Drdo

PIL status – Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report.

3 Comments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi

+ W.P.(C) 3610/2015 & C.M.No.6436/2015 (directions)

PRABHU DANDRIYAL ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr.R.Sathish, Adv. with Mr.Mohan Das K.K., Adv.

 Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS…..

Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG

with Mr.Anil Soni, Ms.Aastha Jain, Mr.Akash Nagar, Advs. for R-1 to 3.

Mr.R.V.Sinha, Adv. for R-5/CVC. Mr.R.V.Sinha.

with Mrs.Monica Gupta, Adv. for CBI.

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

ORDER  29.04.2015 C.M.No.7764/2015 (exemptions) Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.3610/2015

The learned ASG appearing for the respondents, on instructions

States that the Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report.

Re-notify on 27.05.2015. CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 29, 2015/‘anb’ RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

Dear Friends see the DRDO statement in Delhi Court, the whole country is witness the unprecedented delays in all major projects and same manner DRDO misleading the honorable High Court, Delhi

DRDO is applying same tactics in Delhi High Court by stating that Fact Finding Inquiry has already been held and he undertakes to place before this Court the inquiry report in second appearance and again asked for time.

See the facts

The First Fact Finding Inquiry Committee headed by Dr S S Negi, Sc H, members Shri Manoj Bali , Scientist ‘G’ and Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ visited A on 13th – 14th, March 2014 for inquiry on the complaint submitted against Dr. A K Saxena

What submitted by First Fact finding Committee

As per Sh D N Tripathi, Sc F, Addl. Director Administration and Finance, DMSRDE, Kanpur submitted supplementary counter affidavit to Honorable  CAT, Allahabad on 4 June 2014

  1. Fact finding not found any truth for complaint submitted by Sh Navin Praksh Gupta and Prabhu Dandriyal and thus dropped and rejected.
  2. Prabhu Dandriyal was terminated by DRDO (Stated without proof and will pay for that will be filed criminal case against Sh D N Tripathi, Sc F, Addl. Director Administration and Finance, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Dehradun Court)
  3. Photo copy of Fact Finding Report submitted in honorable CAT Allahabad as annexure SCA-3. (It means DRDO having readily available fact finding report the why they wasted precious time of honorable Delhi High Court)

As per Dr A K Singh Letter DOP/DS/008/M/01 dated 28 May 2014to Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Brief facts on the basis of Fact Finding committee – Interestingly fact finding was constituted to find out facts of corruption related allegations within the procurement files.

But Chairman FFIC, Dr S S Negi who is Dr (PhD) on Semiconductor Devices turns Dr on psychology and forgot the procurement related corruption allegation, started the analyses of behavior and life style of Sh R P Bhatt, Sc’F’ and Sh N P Gupta, Sc ‘C’

Committee certified that – Sh R P Bhat, Sc’F’ is a habitual drunkenness, misbehavior, threatening and harassment to others, including the transfer to other lab. The question is it was in the purview of Dr. Negi & team or if it is correct than how Sh R.P Bhatt promoted up to Sc ‘F’, is Dr Negi team gone through the last 5 years APAR of Sh R P Bhatt any negative comment of Dr A K Saxena was there?

Committee suggested that – Necessary action to be initiated against Sh R P Bhat, Sc’F’

Dr. Negi & team can able to stand with their statement in front of High Court, Allahabad?

As Sh R P Bhatt challenged is transfer on the basis of recommendations of Fact Finding Committee

Basically Dr. Negi is very good in scientific work but very poor in administration and management, after assumption of charge as Director, IRDE every day he is facing lot of irregularities of employees and scientists, Union running the local administrations of IRDE, like internal posting /transfer, safety shoe purchase without proper specification, who will go for TD, who will be chair for different investigation enquiries, whom to serve warnings, to whom to give AMC, to whom to give man power supplies, who will sit in security and all sundry things

Second Fact finding Committee

Shri Avinash Chander , DGR&D and SA to RM constituted second four members  FFIC under Chairmanship of Dr. D C Pande, Outstanding Scientist, LRDE, Bangalore  and members Shri Hari babu Srivastva, Director, LASTEC, New Delhi, Shri R S Mehta, Joint Director, Dte of Vigilance& Security, DRDO Hqrs, Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’,Dte of Materials Management DRDO Hqrs  reached at Kanpur on 9th July early morning 5:00 AM at DMSRDE, Guest House, Kanpur by Rewa Express.

As per sources the second Fact finding Committee asked all procurement related files and found lot of irregularities, but the Sh Avinash Chander and Dr A K Singh both were given assurance to Dr A K Saxena, the reason only know to them or GOD.

The website have all documentary evidences to prove the corruption allegations, it is expected that DRDO have no choice to send all these cases for CBI inquiry and website will submit all those evidences to CBI, which website continuously receiving.

See the DRDO efficiency till date DRDO not take any action on the basis of second fact finding committee reports or neither had they submitted the fact finding report to CVO, MOD.

As Director (Vigilance), MOD has sought Director (Vigilance & Security), DRDO for consolidated report by his letter dated 04 August 2014.

Drdo

बहुत देर भई नन्द लाला (पाण्डेय जी) रिपोर्ट कब सबमिट करोगे, समय निकल जायेगा

3 Comments
To                                                                   26th September 2014
Dr D C Pande,
Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist,
 Chairman 2nd Fact finding Committee constituted for DMSRDE corruption
LRDE, DRDO, Bangalore   

 

Dear Pandey Ji,

As you very well aware the complaints against Dr.Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and estimated amount involved in corruption is about 7.5  crore is a tip of ice berg only.

Sh. Avinash Chander (Padam Shree) appointed 1st FFIC under Chairmanship of Dr.S.S. Negi, Scientist ‘H’ as Chairman and Shri Manoj Bali , Scientist ‘G’ and Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ as members of FFIC. This FFIC visited DMSRDE, Kanpur on 13-14 March 2014 and submitted FFIC report in a speedy manner in April 2014. This illegal committee submitted fake report as directed by Shri Avinash Chander who patronage Dr. AK Saxena and in lieu of obedience both Dr.SS Negi and Manoj Bali were awarded by big boss.

You are aware that Dr. SS Negi has been appointed as Director, IRDE, Dehradun and Shri Manoj Bali, Scientist ‘G’ is promoted as Scientist ‘H’ superseded 55 senior scientists as his senirity roll no is 71,  despite several honest and eligible scientists have been ignored.

You have been appointed as Chairman of 2nd  FFIC by big boss with same hope that you also show your loyalty and obedience towards him but your honesty came in path and you still not submitted the report to big boss and not giving clean chit to Dr. AK Saxena who is very close friend of mini DG & DOP Dr. A.K. Singh. Thereby your name is not in today list of promotes for the year 2014 for Distinguished Scientist. May be it will come in supplementary list?

You are fully aware that now Government has been changed and our Prime Minister is not happy with DRDO’s Chalta hai attitude,   for FFIC as maximum time for submission report is three months as per DOPT Inquiry Manual, CVC expects preliminary investigation to be completed within three months.

You have visited DMSRDE, Kanpur on 09-10, July 2014 and completed the FFI. Now third month is coming to end soon and Director (Vigilance), MOD has sought Director (Vigilance & Security), DRDO for consolidated report by his letter dated 04 August 2014.

In recent judgment of Madras High Court, Hon’ble justice commented “Scientist have no excuse that they have no administrative knowledge” and thereby two great senior officials have been sentenced three week imprisonment. Although DRDO हाथ क़ानून से भी लम्बे है today they filed SLP in Supreme Court and got time further with the help of poor tax payers money. पर कब तक ?

Don’t worry sir, one chance still there for you with for being DS in case you submit true report solely based on voice of your sole. You remember that “गरीबों की सुनो वो तुम्हारी सुनेगा, इस साल नहीं हुआ लेकिन अगले साल प्रमोशन होगा”.

क्योंकि अगले असेसमेंट तक अविनाश चन्दर जी तो होंगे नहीं मोदी जी २ अक्टूबर को झाड़ू लगा कर भारत को स्वच्छ बनाने का अभियान छेड़ रहे , भाई साहेब अब सफाई तो होगी ही उसको कोई नहीं रोक सकता ।

You submit the report to justice with poor tax payers money so that culprits of corruption in DMSRDE could be punished CVC and higher authorities.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com, website www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Drdo

Why they don’t line up for DRDO job interviews

3 Comments

Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Six

Why they don’t line up for DRDO job interviews

Amitav Ranjan
Posted: Fri Nov 17 2006, 00:00 hrs
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 16:

While there could be a thousand and one reasons to explain the Defence Research & Development Organisation’s dismal success rate in defence projects, no rocket science is required to explain why it can neither attract — or retain scientific talent.

In latest testimony before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, available with The Indian Express, the DRDO admitted that 1,404 scientists had left for greener pastures in the last 10 years which, incidentally, coincided with the information technology boom in the country. Worse, this exodus has progressively eroded nearly 10 per cent of DRDO’s technical strength during these years. The DRDO confessed to the Committee on June 7: “The problem is not of the numbers and not of the lack of training but of retaining the scientists.”

In the same breath, however, DRDO said that the “reason” for the attrition was that a large chunk of the 1,404 left on “personal/domestic grounds” – an unbridled expression that could encompass anything from fatter pay packets to the exasperation of working on stalled projects within a sarkari structure. A 16-point list of incentives for its scientists, including royalty-sharing schemes, upgrading allowances, providing financial assistance for laptops and conferences, proposed to the ministry by former DRDO chief V K Aatre in July 2001 languishes in the recesses of the South Block.

Five years later, on July 12 this year, DRDO testified to the Committee that nothing has moved. “DRDO is striving to meet the rising expectations of scientists to attract and retain them in the organisation. Proposed incentives have been submitted to RM (Defence Minister) through RRM (Minister of State for Defence).”

The lack of success, quite apart from compensation at DRDO, is also a dampener in attracting talent. (See table). It is no wonder, therefore, that the IITs – some of the few institutions at which DRDO holds campus recruitment programmes – sends almost none of its students to the organization when they graduate.

Says Professor Y P Singh, formerly Head of Electrical Engineering at IIT Kharagpur and now consulting for a DRDO project: “DRDO was never a preferred place for our students. Most development there is reverse engineering and hardly any original work. Somehow, they have got lost. There is no dearth of talent in the country.”

His remedy: If DRDO could get even a handful of talented youngsters and took good care of them in every way, there would would be no limits to what could be achieved. DRDO today is, therefore, attractive for an internship or a short-term stint for a promising young scientist – there is never a shortage of research resources and equipment – but probably the last place he or she would look at for an enduring career in cutting edge research and development.

That all of DRDO’s biggest programmes are led from Southern laboratories, mostly in Hyderabad and Bangalore, from 1996 onward, the organisation has provided easy pickings for the IT and industrial R&D base there. DRDO chief M Natarajan himself testified on June 7, “A number of MNCs are establishing R&D centers in India, many in the cities where DRDO has a cluster of laboratories and establishments.”

What Natarajan wouldn’t say is that DRDO is also afflicted by a bizarre level of stagnation, in which project directors spend a decade or more on projects, undermining both growth at the lower levels, and a freshness of perspective vital to keep programmes on their toes. The problem is well known – what lies beneath is not. So DRDO scientists are no longer just leaving for better salaries. Groups of scientists and engineers from DRDO are coming together now to form high-tech startups with seed funds from venture capitalists. Salaries are low, but what’s driving them – “entrepreneurial aspirations” (See box).

According to an official estimate, in 2005-06, 42 scientists left DRDO to join startups run by their contemporaries. But a glance at the 16 incentives being asked for, now in the hands of Defence Minister AK Antony, is a revelation of what DRDO scientists want:

* Enhance professional update allowance for scientists from Rs 5,000 to Rs 20,000, reimbursements of Rs 1,000 for internet access and telephone for all scientists, in addition to a Rs 80,000 laptop grants for all scientists, air travel and field trial duty allowances of Rs 500 per day and a Rs 1,000 hard station posting allowance.

* Enhance study leave to 36 months and total absence of 48 months for doctoral degrees among its staff, a study leave living allowance of Rs 3,000 per month, financial assistance of Rs 1 lakh for scientists at international conferences (which they should be allowed to attend once every two years), a reward of Rs 10,000 for scientists who get their papers published in international journals, grant of sabbatical leave for a maximum of 24 months in two spells after a minimum 10 years service.

* Royalty sharing scheme on the lines of CSIR, reward schemes for scientists who get their products inducted into the services , authorisation for individual consultancy to the private sector for three days every month and permission to hold an adjunct appointment for a month every year.

Even if these are approved, experts say, the larger problem remains: the lack of original work in DRDO’s labs, as IIT’s Singh underlined; the bureaucratic structure, the lack of accountability at all levels on project delivery. The same reasons as the ones behind its failure to deliver on projects.

Drdo

DRDO opposes it but House panel underlines: you need outside audit

Leave a comment

 DRDO opposes it but House panel underlines: you need outside audit

Amitav Ranjan , Shiv Aroor

Posted: Thu Dec 28 2006, 00:00 hrs

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 27:

The Defence Ministry strongly resisted it. The Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister discarded it as unnecessary. But the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence has now categorically rejected both views and recommended that the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) be brought under the audit scrutiny of an “independent and external” panel of experts to make sure that expensive and delayed defence projects don’t remain indefinitely adrift.

The report is scheduled to be tabled in the Budget session of Parliament.

In the report, compiled after detailed testimonies from the military top brass and independent experts over several months, the Standing Committee, chaired by Balasahib Vikhe Patil, has observed, “There is no scientific audit of DRDO projects as such. However, the DRDO has mechanism of feasibility study, design and technology evaluation, project peer review. The Committee observe that inspite of that, a large number of projects are showing inordinate delay and escalation of huge cost. The Committee therefore recommends that in addition to existing audit system, DRDO’s projects must also be audited by external and independent audit group of experts duly approved by the Government of India.”

It goes on to add, “The Committee is of the view that this will facilitate the government to check on the growing cost and time overrun of the DRDO projects and also to ascertain the accountability for the delay in execution of projects.”

In just 12 of the DRDO’s most critical projects — involving systems that the armed forces need more than any other, like missiles, fighters and theatre artillery — the organisation has exceeded sanctioned estimates by Rs 6, 013.43 crore in just the last 10 years, a figure greater than its current annual budget.

This recommendation comes after the Committee conducted a thorough review recently of the country’s most crucial defence programmes, including the integrated guided missile development programme (IGMDP), the Light Combat Aircraft, the Arjun main battle tank, the Kaveri jet engine and concurrent engineering.

On November 16, as part of an investigative series on the DRDO’s delay and mismanagement, The Indian Express had reported on how the Defence Ministry had failed to act on a crucial point raised by the Vijay Kelkar committee, recommending that DRDO’s functioning as a research body needed to be under the purview of a panel of independent experts.

In fact, on the day before the report was published, Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG) VN Kaul said at a defence economics seminar, “Defence R&D is an area where accountability often takes shelter under the policy of self reliance, and indigenization becomes a reason for delay… accountability of domestic R&D organizations needs to be re-emphasized to enable better assessment of return from investment. Sensitizing of the defence services to the role of public audit is essential.”

This is precisely what the Committee has now called for, virtually thrusting aside DRDO’s own contention that “accountability cannot be fixed for loss of time in projects”.

The Committee has observed, “Keeping in view the disappointing performance of DRDO, the Committee strongly recommends to the government the complete review of the functioning and structure of DRDO… by appointing an independent committee of experts/professionals, on the lines of AEC and ISRO” and said that DRDO “cannot absolve itself” from the responsibility for inordinate delay.

“The delays cause suspicion on the capability of DRDO in the eyes of the users and other nations of the world,” it says in its report.

Following The Indian Express series, Kelkar was called in by the Standing Committee last week to expand on the observation he had made 21 months ago as part of his overall recommendations on reforming defence procurement. For the Committee, this was absolutely against what DRDO itself had said in testimony on January 2: “DRDO has enough audit and reviews of the projects at various stages. It is not considered necessary to introduce additional audit and reviews.”

Drdo

The case to support the indigenous LCA programme

Leave a comment

The case to support the indigenous LCA programme

Ashok Parthasarathi and Raman Puri

The facts with regard to perceived cost and time overruns and performance shortfalls in perspective

There have been several articles in the press critical of projects of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in general, and specifically the programme relating to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), now named Tejas, and the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Indeed, whenever a significant event that involves indigenous R&D, particularly defence-related, occurs, or a crucial decision is set to be taken, articles originating from within the defence “system,” or from vendors who see their business prospects threatened, appear. The real facts relating to the programme need to be put in context.

Performance shortfalls

The two issues on which the LCA project is criticised are cost and time overruns, and performance shortfalls. As regards the so-called time overruns, when the zero/go date for the project is taken as 1983, the critics fail to mention that what was sanctioned in 1983 was an ad hoc Rs.560 crore, pending full preparation of the Project Definition Document (PDD) — which is a fundamental step even to start the design and development process. The costs were to be finalised based on the PDD. This required the setting up of infrastructure in a hundred academic institutions and R&D laboratories and building up expertise to undertake the fundamental and application-oriented R&D required, and harnessing the design and engineering effort available largely in the public sector units for such a complex, state-of-the-art aircraft. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) discussed with Air Headquarters the Air Staff Requirement (ASR). Air Headquarters had requirements added to what was originally to be a replacement for the MiG-21. As a result, the ASR that was finalised was practically that for a Mirage 2000. But in the public perception the LCA remained as a replacement for MiG 21.

It look seven years, till 1990, to formulate the PDD. Based on this the ADA, in a report to the Ministry of Defence in 1990, gave a time-frame of seven years to develop the LCA and projected a financial requirement of Rs.4,000 crore. This included the building of four prototypes also. There had been a 25-year gap since the only fighter aircraft ever indigenously designed, developed and manufactured, namely the HF-24 Marut, had entered squadron service. So the period of seven years to set up a more advanced R&D infrastructure and build up even the core personnel needed to develop the technologies that the LCA’s ASR and PDD called for, was modest.

“Go-ahead”

After consideration, including by special committees, the Indian Air Force and the government gave the real operational go-ahead only in late-1993. Even that “go-ahead” covered the development of only two Technology Demonstrator Aircraft (TDA) without weaponisation. The funding approved was only of Rs.2,000 crore — half the amount requested for full-scale development. The first TDA flew in 2001, eight years from the real operational ‘go’ date, despite much additional R&D work that had to be undertaken due to the U.S. sanctions imposed in 1998.

Comments appeared in the media in 2001 quoting IAF sources to the effect that what the ADA had achieved was just a flying machine that was yet to be weaponised. Considering the nature and scope of the approval accorded in 1993, what else was to be expected? Using the money sanctioned for two TDAs, the ADA built four. Full-scale development, for which another Rs.2,000-plus crore was finally sanctioned, thus started only in late-2001. Some 1,200 hours of flight testing was to be undertaken to secure Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) from the IAF.

At that point, apart from the weaponisation requirements the project had to undergo extensive redesign to accommodate an air-to-air missile chosen by the IAF, which was considerably heavier and longer than what had been specified till 2000. The IAF had again changed its mind. This necessitated the complete redesign of the wing structure, using only composite materials in order to keep the weight within limits. The period of this redesign was also utilised to upgrade the avionics, to a completely open architecture.

Consequently, in “generational terms” the LCA is a fourth generation-plus aircraft with full networking capabilities. This made it more than comparable to anything the IAF had, and possibly would have, even after it acquires the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) now on tender, with first deliveries due eight years hence.

On the engine

It is true that the Kaveri engine for the LCA that the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) of the DRDO has been developing for 12 years has not yet met its technical performance targets and requires redevelopment. So far the GE 404 engine from the U.S., which powers the F-16 fighter-bomber, has been used to power the LCA. The problems the GTRE has with the Kaveri are not unusual in a complex fighter aircraft engine project being undertaken for the first time. Moreover, the financial sanction of about Rs.320 crore given for engine development was possibly only to cover the Project Definition Phase and some high-risk technology development effort. We do not know of a first-of-type high-technology fighter aircraft engine being developed anywhere in less than a multi-billion dollar programme and a 20-year-plus development cycle. Even Snecma, the sole fighter aircraft engine manufacturer in France, despite decades of experience in developing and manufacturing engines for Mirage III, V and F-1, took about a decade and $2.2 billion to develop the M-88 engine for the Mirage 2000. The development of the Kaveri is unlikely to cross $1 billion.

The LCA with a GE 404 engine has done 800-plus hours of flight-testing. Even with that engine the performance has been not only vastly superior to that of even the recently upgraded MiG 21 BIS (the IAF is operating almost 400 of the series), but it has shown itself to be comparable in many critical parameters to the Mirage 2000. Modifications to the aircraft structure are under way to reduce weight and improve engine performance. When the GTRE’s joint venture with a leading foreign engine manufacturer for further development is completed in the next four years, the Kaveri will be brought up to a performance level, superior to the GE 404. Fitted with it, the LCA will be truly comparable to the Mirage 2000 and in many respects even superior. And all this in an aircraft much lighter than the Mirage 2000.

Superior

As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF’s inventory.

So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.

As recently as in 2005, the IAF’s requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At Rs.120 crore to Rs.140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?

As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.

The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.

It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.

(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).