Tag Archives: Kaveri Engine

OneIndia Exclusive: DRDO to abandon indigenous fighter jet engine Kaveri project

Written by: Dr Anantha Krishnan M,Wednesday, November 19, 2014,

Bengaluru, Nov 18: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has decided to wind up the Kaveri engine (GTX-35VS ) programme, signaling an end to a desi dream of equipping its own fighter jet with a home-grown power plant. Sources in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed to OneIndia on Tuesday that the DRDO has already moved a file recently seeking the closure of the ambitious engine development project undertaken by Bengaluru-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE).kaveri engin
The proposal now needs to get the approval of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and finally the clearance from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) – a process expected to take at least a year. The Kaveri project, which began in the mid-80s, was aimed at powering the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. GTRE has spent so far Rs 2,106 crore on the project so far and could only fly the engine for 73 hours on the IL-76 Flying Test Bed (FTB) in Russia. The delay in the project saw DRDO choosing the GE 404 engine for Tejas Mk-1 and GE 414 for Tejas Mk-II. GTRE gets additional funds Sources said that the DRDO has sanctioned Rs 300 crore for GTRE to take up future projects. “The lab is gearing up to take up some futuristic projects and the sanctions have been already given. Another additional sanction of Rs 700 crore is on its way to help realize these gen-next technologies,” an official said.kaveri engin 1

Sources confirm that a separate proposal of Rs 2,600 crore to develop engines for an ‘ambitious project’ is under consideration now. The lab has been given another Rs 70 crore for a strategic programme. Part of DRDO’s bold decision, confirms DG Refusing to divulge the finer details, Dr K Tamilmani, Director-General (Aero), DRDO, confirmed to OneIndia that the Kaveri project will be scrapped. “Yes. These are part of the bold stand being taken by DRDO. Whereever we have found bottlenecks for long time, with no realistic solutions, it’s better to move on. It is an honest stand we are taking,” Tamilmani said. When asked whether the decision was a fall out of the recent remarks made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking DRDO to come out of the delay trap, the senior official refused to make a direct comment. “If you are fit to run only for 50 km, why attempt 100 km? DRDO has realized its mistakes of the past and we have no hesitation in taking some bold steps,” he said. Sources said that the MoF has sought some clarifications from DRDO on the Kaveri project, before the matter could finally reach the CCS.kaveri engin 2

Years of hard work won’t go waste: GTRE Director Dr C P Ramanarayanan, Director, GTRE, said that the DRDO decision might not be final. Leading a team of 900-plus staff at GTRE, Dr Ramanarayanan is now left with the task of inspiring the team to launch future projects. “This is not the end of the road. We have identified some 12 core areas of technologies and various teams are already at it. Years of hard work put in by the team won’t go waste either,” Dr Ramanarayanan, a torpedo specialist, told OneIndia.

kaveri engin 3He said world over not many countries have progressed ahead in making engines. “We have made a good start and despite the delays, proved our capabilities to our best of abilities. The lessons learnt will not go down the drain. India must become self sufficient in making aero engines and our efforts will continue,” he added.

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- II

‘The LCA won’t take off in the near future’

George Iype

The Light Combat Aircraft is perhaps the most ambitious of all DRDO projects. But 17 years and four postponements of its test flight later, the multi-role fighter meant to replace the MiG-21 is still a dream.

What has happened to the LCA, the most technologically complex challenge that DRDO had taken up? Air force officers, DRDO scientists and defence experts say it remains grounded because of “scores of technical problems.”

The delay has hurt the air force badly and dented the DRDO’s image. A country that has not designed a jet fighter in decades had been waiting long for one. India had designed and produced the HF-24 aircraft in the early 1960s, but its engine was British.

Such was the enthusiasm behind the LCA that in 1985 the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi showcased it as a symbol of the new era of co-operation and friendship between India and the United States. Gandhi even overrode the claims of the French and Germans who had been collaborating with DRDO and the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautical Limited for the LCA production.

The original deadline to fly the aircraft was 1993. The cost, Rs 5.6 billion. The DRDO and HAL did roll out an LCA in the presence of then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao on November 17, 1995. DRDO top brass then announced that the maiden flight would take place in early 1997. The dates were revised to June 1998 and then to February 1999.

Years passed by, but no test flight took place. Today the deadline for the LCA has become a joke in defence circles.

The most scathing criticism of the project came from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India who, in his 1999 report, said: ‘Even at the end of 1998, the LCA had not crossed the development stage. Its production and induction into the air force remains only a distant possibility.’

The CAG report went on to add that the airframe for LCA developed by the DRDO’s Bangalore laboratory, the Aeronautical Development Agency ‘is deficient in vital parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and most importantly, the weight.’

The first phase of the project consumed Rs 25 billion, overshooting the estimated Rs 5.6 billion. Worse, due to the delay, the air force was compelled to upgrade its MiG Bis aircraft at a cost of Rs 21.35 billion.

Scientists at DRDO, ADA and HAL concede one thing: the LCA has run into some serious technical problems. LCA is a meticulous fly-by-wire aircraft, which is critically dependent on software to fly.

“But over the years, we have not been successful in fully testing the software. Therefore, we face difficulties in integrating the system,” admits an engineer at HAL.

Since the aircraft depends on computers, no pilot wants to risk a flight test without thoroughly validating the system. Scientists say the trials intended to test the dynamic stability of the airframe and the LCA’s engine-flight control system has been successful. Though the engine and the electronics are in the advanced test mode, the aircraft’s ability to withstand low pressure and temperature at high altitudes is suspect.

“There is reason enough to worry that the LCA will not take off in the near future,” says Bangalore-based aviation expert P N Srivastava.

I feel the delay is primarily due to the fact that it took years for a country like India to get the advanced technology for the project,” he says. “The idea for LCA was born without having any requisite technology on our side,” Srivastava points out.

DRDO officials put forward one reason for the project delay — sanctions from the United States after the Pokhran nuclear blasts. In a bid to force India to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle, the US has pulled out of the project soon after the tests.

Thus, just one week after the explosions in May 1998, many scientists working on different fields linked to the LCA at aerospace giant Lockheed Martin in Binghamton, New York, were asked to pack their bags for India by the United States. The Indian engineers were working to validate a computerised control law software for onboard computers which will ultimately fly the aircraft.

As it imposed sanctions, the US also denied key components like hydraulic actuators — that help manoeuvre the aircraft, gain altitude and determine the trajectory — and the ring-laser gyros to make inertial navigation systems.

“One of the main reasons for the delay is that technological sanctions from the US hit us badly. Had it not been for the nuclear blasts, our deadline to test fly the aircraft would have been successful in December 1998,” says a senior DRDO official.

Lockheed Martin refused to give the DRDO the flight control computer, which was in the US for testing, when sanctions were announced, he added.

Another major hurdle for DRDO is the LCA’s engine. As per its agreement with the US, India was allowed to purchase frontline 404 engines from General Electric. In fact, DRDO imported 11 such engines and fitted them on to the early versions of the aircraft, pending the development of the indigenous Kaveri engine being developed by Bangalore’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment.

But after the nuclear tests, GE withdrew its technical support personnel from India and DRDO was forced to depend only on Kaveri. Sources now say it will take at least two years to determine whether Kaveri engines can withstand the low pressure and temperature at high altitudes.

No one at DRDO, ADA and HAL believes that the LCA will fly before 2005.

Experts say the delay should be examined in the context of a country that has not designed and produced a jet fighter since the 1960s. Development of every vital component of the LCA — airframe, multimode radar, flight control system, Kaveri engine, digital electronic engine control – are said to be beset with problems.

Scientists at DRDO, for their part, hold the defence ministry partially responsible for the delay. Between 1990 and 1994, all work came to a virtual standstill as the defence ministry refused to release the much-needed foreign exchange because of economic stringency.

But the biggest worry for DRDO is not the bureaucratic delays and sanctions, but the Indian air force. Faced with diminishing number of its ageing fleet, the IAF holds DRDO responsible for promising to deliver the LCA before year 2,000, thereby considerably upsetting many of its aircraft acquisition plans.

Suspecting that DRDO will never deliver the LCA, the IAF has now embarked on an ambitious project to upgrade 100 MiG-21 aircraft.

Despite the heavy odds, DRDO still remains confident that it will roll out the country’s first indigenous aircraft before 2002.

We will induct 200 LCAs into the Indian Air Force between 2003 and 2010,” Dr Abdul Kalam told a group of aeronautical scientists before he handed over DRDO’s charges to Dr Vasudev K Aatre.

But there aren’t many who believe that promise will be fulfilled.

The DRDO report card

By Yatish Yadav and Nardeep Singh Dahiya 02nd September 2012 12:00 AM

CGDA secret audit blows the lid off several other projects

Nirbhay missile

Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE BANGALORE): In December 2010, a project for ‘additional development flight trials of Nirbhay’ was sanctioned costing Rs 18.1 crore . This was overlapping with an ongoing project codenamed Nirbhay sanctioned in 2004 at a cost of Rs 48 Crore.

“Old projects PDC has not been extended nor has it been successfully closed. The sanction of Rs 18.1 crore as a new project was inappropriate,” the audit said.
In one of its observation on the same project, the audit said “The case also raises questions on the way project proposals are put up for sanction. How original proposal to develop NIRBHAY exclude its trial? No research and development project can be sanctioned without inclusion of trial of the developed products.”
Arjun tank
Integrated Arjun tank program was sanctioned to CVRDE in November 2010 at a cost of Rs 69.90 crore. However, several small projects have been sanctioned under ‘buildup’. Audit reports reveal that it was done to avoid going through competent financial authority, which is contrary to financial regulations.
NAG missile
DRDO sanctioned another project at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore while cabinet committee on security approved programme to develop NAG missile is still going on.
UAV Aerostat project
It was sanctioned by DRDO at a cost of Rs 49.82 crore by reducing the cost proposed by the lab (Rs 70 crore) so as to bring it just under Rs 50 crore, which is its sanctioning power.
Facet
Facility for Electro-Optical System Testing (FACET) was sanctioned at a cost of Rs 35 crore by DG DRDO to create a facility, which is essentially required to meet the objectives of an already sanctioned project. However, the old project’s cost was not revised with the approval of appropriate CFA.
Flop show
Akash, NAG & Trishul missiles
The troika of integrated Guided Missile Development Plan (IGDMP) failed to fire after burning thousands of crore taxpayer’s money for almost 30 years. Akash which started in 1983 failed to meet requirements of army but after some hard bargaining Air force inducted it in its arsenal.
NAG, failed the 53rd test in August 2012. The project was started at an original cost of Rs 388.83 Crore in 1983, which was later revised to Rs 1,771.43 Crore. Indian army was forced to buy costly Javelin missile from USA in 2009 after DRDO failed to develop the project even after 29 years. After successive failures, Trishul was officially shelved in 2008. It is now reduced as a technology demonstrator by the DRDO.
AGNI
The AGNI project was launched in 1983. The DRDO borrowed ISRO’s PSLV rocket to enhance firepower after it failed the initial tests before 1994. AGNI series of Missiles AGNI I and AGNI II with a range of 700 km and 2,500 km were inducted in the armed forces after successful tests. AGNI III with a range of 3,500 km is expected to be inducted in the army soon.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in its report in March 2012 observed that the maximum range of the missiles that have been handed over to the army is 25 km only. Government in its reply to the committee had stated that the Indian army is currently in the process of procurement of advanced long range missile system and upgradation of certain existing weapon platform.
LCA
The LCA project, launched in 1983,is still waiting for final flight. The DRDO failed to develop promised indigenous engine even after spending over Rs 17,000 crore. It is expected to achieve the lasted deadline by December 2013.
Consider the three biggest projects: developing a Main Battle Tank (MBT), a nuclear-powered submarine, and an advanced Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The MBT project was launched in 1974. But the tank has failed to meet service-requirement tests. It is reportedly too heavy and undependable to be used in combat. The Indian Army prefers Russian tanks and says it will use MBTs for training, not operations. The nuclear submarine project, launched 31 years ago, is not yet finished despite an estimated Rs 3,000 crore spent on it. The reactor is apparently ready, but not tested with the vessel’s hull.
Kaveri Engine
The CAG in its annual report 2010-11 noted that government had already spent Rs 1,892 crore on Kaveri Engine development programme launched in 1986 to power the Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas. In 2005, the GTRE had indicated that it would not be able to develop the Kaveri engine on its own. Defence Minister AK Antony has told Parliament that the DRDO still has no time-frame to fully develop its Kaveri engine. He also said that the engine will be used in UAVs and marine applications.

Antony asks DRDO to build credible missile defence system

Antony asks DRDO to build credible missile defence system

Agencies – Indian Express

Posted: Fri Jun 03 2011, 15:01 hrs

New Delhi:

Defence Minister A K Antony today asked the DRDO to prioritise the development of 5,000-km range ballistic missile while building a credible missile defence system for the country.

He also congratulated the Defence Research Development Organisation for developing the interceptor missile allowing India to join an elite club of nations possessing such advance technology.

“DRDO must demonstrate the capability to develop missiles of the range of 5000 km at the earliest. This is a challenge for the DRDO and I hope they will successfully meet this challenge at the earliest,” he said here.

Antony was addressing a gathering of defence scientists who received the DRDO’s annual award for excelling in their respective areas.

“The interceptor missile defence program has taken India into the elite club of nations that possess the capability to demonstrate this technology. DRDO should now concentrate on developing a credible ballistic missile defence for the country,” he added.

He also asked DRDO scientists to focus on the development of Mark II version of the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun for the Indian Army and Kaveri Engine.

“The development of MBT Arjun and Kaveri Engine has been hit by delays. Development of MBT Arjun is a major milestone. But Mark II is another area of challenge. That challenge you have to meet,” he told the gathering.

Antony also asked DRDO and Indian Air Force (IAF) to ensure on schedule the induction of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas into the force.

“After getting the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) for the LCA Tejas, we are moving towards its Final Operational Clearance (FOC). I am sure DRDO and IAF will work together to deliver Tejas on schedule,” he said.

He added that the delays in the development of indigenous engine for the fighter jets had given more time for the induction of the LCA and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) for the IAF.

The case to support the indigenous LCA programme

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).

Mr T. Mohan Rao, Director, GTRE – The boss of Kaveri Engine

To                                                                                                                              17th June 2011
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Honorable Sir,

Recently you said”Transparency revolution to go on” you are the first man in government, who sense this upcoming revolution and we are 100% that you are accepting it in your ministry and preparing the machinery for accountability.

National Technology Day signifies the glorious achievements of Indian science and technology and has been celebrated all over the country after the successful Pokhran II, Nuclear test on 11 and 13 May 1998.  .Since 1999, 11 May being celebrated by labs/estts of DRDO with delivering of Technology Day Oration, Open House Session, Quiz, etc. The scientist after their technology day oration was felicitated with medals and commendation certificates signed by SA to RM.

As you already aware of the ugly act of Mr. T Mohan Rao, Director GTRE who was celebrated the glorious achievement of 11th May with the Mr V N Narayan, Agent of ILN Technologies Inc.

Next important point the advocate Mr KKR filed the bail application for Mr. T Mohan Rao, Director GTRE and Mr V N Narayan, Agent of ILN Technologies Inc.

When DRDO’s top project director indulge specially with vendor’s agent how can be Indian forces trust DRDO.

As per your direction the enquiry committee was formed and they already investigated and collected all evidences, but sources said that they are helping Mr. Mohan Rao to come out from this crisis.  Dr. V Bhujanga Rao, DS & CC R&D (HR), Dr R Sreehari Rao OS & CC R&D (ECS) and Brig Ajay Gupta submitted their report to SA to RM.

CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 – If the act or conduct of the servant is so grossly immoral that all reasonable men will say that the employee cannot be trusted.

Find herewith some of the real facts about Sri T. Mohan Rao, Ex..Director, GTRE, who was arrested by Police during a raid 011 a high end massage parlor in Jayamahal, Bangalore on 11th May 2011   (Refer to FIR and Police Report attached) 

  1. The raid occurred at around 01.00 PM on Wednesday 11th   May 2011. He was enrooting Bangalore airport supposed to board the New Delhi flight at 1630hrs.
  2. He participated in the DRC on 10th May 2011 at Delhi, returned back to Bangalore. He was supposed to go back to Delhi attend another important meeting on 12th May 2011
  3. Incidentally May 11th happened to be “‘National Technology Day'” for DRDO. In the. Calendar of    monthly event for the month of May 2011 published in GTRE was supposed to chair the National Technology Day function at 1600 Hrs
  4. He has not made any arrangement for the above function; rather he was busy in going to massage parlour at same time.
  5. He was using official government vehicle whose driver was Mr. Victor. The Driver asked to drop him at a distance place and wait at Mekri Circle near Jayamahal till he return.
  6. Mr T Mohan Rao went with Mr V N Narayana a leading vendor/agent from ILN Tech1oogies, supplying mechanical parts to DRDO and other defence company, who was also arrested with Mohan Rao along with 17 others.
  7. According to records available at GTRE the  official  vehicle left GTRE around 1200 Hrs along with Mr T Mohan Rao and the driver was Mr Victor and the vehicle reported back at around 2300 Hrs (11 PM)
  8. FIR and police report narrates in detail the event clearly. Wherein T Mohan Rao was caught red handed inside the Room no 1 with the girl naked named Meera Rao.
  9. He carne out on bail on 13th evening, his mobile and identity card was seized by police. He gave wrong address to the police for which he has provided the proof through his lawyer to obtain bail.
  10. The Advocate who filed the vakalath along with bail application for Mohan Rao and Narayan was same i.e.  KKR (as per police report)
  11. What is so important work he had in GTRE on 11th May 2011, for which he had spent Government money for the flight charges. He has spent only 3 hours a day in office. ‘What happened to his movement order? Has he appointed officiating Director in his absence?
  12. He has not informed higher official at CC and SA about his arrest.
  13. Has he come to GTRE to finalize some deal with Mr VN Narayana or ­some vendor through Narayanan? His focus was on these deals, he gave less import to development of Kaveri engine.
  14. Bail order clearly states that the accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witness in any manner. Can he give wrong Information in news paper which his against court order?
  15. He has formed an informal team with those members who were helped facilitated, and supported his immoral, illegal, corrupt practices in GTRE. For their support to carry out immoral, illegal corrupt practices   many were rewarded with not only faster promotion but also other favors like awards, sponsorship, nominations, deputations abroad, temporary duties to out station, financial powers etc by passing superiors.
  16. Sh RV Madhusoodanan, Sc’G’ was given extension in service beyond 60 years Only  to look in the civil works inside GTRE and acts as spy for Director GTRE to pass on information about the honest and sincere officers and staff who are not favoring their misdeeds.
  17. Mr. V.N. Narayana of ILN Technologies’ has  bagged many orders worth  of corers of rupees   for supplying  engine parts to GTRE  and to other defence companies with the tactics support of Mr. T. Mohan Rao.
  18. As Director GTRE. Mr. T. Mohan Rao has made wealth disproportionate to his Income;. Currently he is running   a school and planning to start a college. He has contact with politician and higher officials in the state and central government. Using money and power he is trying to cover-up the case.
  19. The offence he has committed by indulging in immoral activities by misusing official power is only the tip of ice berg. He has been arrested and released on bail under ITF act section 3,4,5 & 7 (ITB)
  20. As a government servant, under the provision of central civil services  (CCA) rules  he has committed serious offence/ conduct involving moral turpitude, misuse: of official power for personal gain, serious negligence  and dereliction of duty desertion of duty  refusal deliberate  failure to to carry out orders of superiors etc.
  21. The enquiry committee formed to look into these matters is trying to hide the fact and helping him.   He should have been dismissed from the service; instead he has been transferred to another lab. From there he is working with help of politician, DOP, CC R&D at DRDO Hqrs. and his corrupt supporters in GTRE in to come back to GTRE.
  22. The police seized the identity card of Mr.T Mohan Rao and after got bail on 13th he went to GTRE on 14th May and first thing he did he asked Identity card for himself without giving any excuse. Interestingly the inquiry committee had not taking concern of this act.

Kannada portion on page 3-4 translations.

12. First Information Report Contents

The brief summary of this case is as follows:

On 11-05-2011 CCB W&N unit ACP Shri. R.Lakhsman obtained confirmed information from informant that the Energy Inc, Inner Growth Outer perfection Finishing & Training Academy Therapeutic Healing at 1st floor, Eden Apt., 5th  main. JC Nagar, in the name of beauty parlor prostitution was practiced. Based on the confirmed information at 1.00  in the afternoon the CCB officer & staff raided the above said parlor and taken to custody of 10 ladies and 9 gents who were engages in prostitution and confiscated Es 68435 as cash, 15 mobiles, 2 motor cycles, 3 cars and one HDFC Swiping machine.

The above accused has been booked under column number 3,4,5& 7 of ITP act and the  file transfer of complaint etc were made

Ref: JC Nagar Police Station Case No.63/4Ull Column 3, 4, 5 & 7 of ITP Act

With reference to the above said subject in the Honorable Court. We submit that 11-05.2011 Shri R Lakhoman ACP, Women & Drug Wing And CCB. Bangalore at 2.00 PM in the office get information that   the Energy Inc, Inner Growth Outer Perfection Finishing & Training Academy Therapeutic Healing at 1st floor, Eden Apt., 5th  main. JC Nagar, is engaged in prostitution PC Srinivasa, PC Thimmappa reached the spot around 15.15 Hrs wide the presence of Shrl Mohamed Shakil and Mr Mohamed Sami With their presence the place was raided and the re-seen report was prepared and the signature of the witnesses were obtained.

After words, ACP sent PC Srinivas as a Decoy and asked him to make a miss call after initiating the transaction. He was provided with 2500 (2 Notes of Rs.l000 and one Rest 500 Note bearing Nos. 7AQ 667811. 5DS. 199632 and SEC 169580 respectively). The Decoy gave a missed call to ACP after establishing the transaction Immediately the ACP along with the. Witnesses raided No 14 Eden Hall apt first floor. ACP Showed his identity card to   Receptionist and asked her name and address, She told her name is Rosrni Maria. C/o..Mohamed.Aslam aged 35 Yrs residing at Srikantapura, Punjapalya, Tumkur Road, Bangalore. She said the owner of this Parlor is Smt Pradeep Madhuri Hingo Rani.  Who engaged Sanjana, Sumalatha, Leena, Meera Rao, Ruby, Si-Si-, Kavya, Suhashini and Sara, and run prostitution and use them to carry out Body to Body massage in the name of massage parlor.

On enquiry of a person standing near the cash counter his name is    Hemant Kumar, S/o Vasudev, 35 Yrs, #Q’2, 3rd cross 3rd main, Peenya 2nd stage and he  came to this place for body to body massage. On enquiry from ACP, Roshni Maria told that she gets Rs.2500 from each customer and do not give any receipt. ACP ask  the receptionist where  she has sent to Srinivas. She told that she  has sent him to Room No.5 with Kavya, after receiving Rs2500. Then the ACP went to Room No 5   and found that  the Decoy was half naked and  Kavya was totally undressed  and was standing naked kissing .the  decoy ACP asked them to dress properly  and obtained the name and address of Kavya 23 yrs old. She told that she is working as a therapist and serve the customer by kissing and massaging them naked. The parlor owner gives her a salary of Rs 9000 per month. The decoy told that he paid the money to the receptionist. Then ACP enquired the receptionist and confiscated Rs 23000, a mobile 8088278733 where she uses, one more mobile of the owner NOKIA 6303, No. 9845165188 and a HDFC Swipe Machine. When asked about other costumer.  She took them to all the rooms.

At Room No.1, Meera Rao was massaging Mohan Rao nakedly they were taken in to custody.

At Room No 2, Leena Das and Sanjana were doing body to body massaging With Narayan M V nakedly. They were taken in to custody.

Room No 3…

Room No 4….

Room No 6…

From, all these people a total cash of Rs 67435, 15 mobiles, 2 Motor Cycles, 3 cars and one HDFC Swipe Machine were confiscated and recorded in CCB items list No 17/2011

In this case A 20 Smt Madhuri accused for running prostitution in the name of massage parlor is absconding and the case to be further investigated.

As per Ref Police Commissioner Office No (2)/Meeting/389/20088 dated 19-11-2008 para -7.6, the case has been registered at J C Nagar police station under No 3,4,5, & 7 of ITP act and further investigation will be carried out.

I have investigated the accused and produced their statements. I have registered the confiscated items recovered from them under reference CCB items no 17/2011

1             A 20 female accused on immoral traffic, further information required

2             Investigation is incomplete

3             Further evidence of A1 to A19 to be collected.

Sd/
KR Dhadramma
Police Inspector
Women & Drug Wing
CCB NT, Bangalore

Sir, you just imagine that if Mr. T Mohan Rao again join back as Director to GTRE and will distribute the awards for Next National Technology Day to children of GTRE employees, what will the feeling of true Indians.

Hope you will take an exemplary action for cleaning the DRDO from corruption and nepotism.

Thanking you

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal 
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Tele/Fax –0135- 2787750, Mobile- 09411114879,
E-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  prabhu@dandriyal.com
Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/