Tag Archives: Aerospace industry

Defence Procurement: Truth vs Hype

This article was presented at a Seminar by CII on ‘Make in India for Indian Air Force through Innovation & Indigenisation – Season 2’ on 23rd May 2017 at Delhi. Specific instances are cited, where the clauses in the Defence Procurement Manual have been breached in letter and spirit in actual practice.

DPM 2009 – THEORY vs. PRACTICE

Introduction: The term ‘Self-reliance’ has been a fashionable term of Prime Ministers and defense ministers over the last six decades. Yet, we continue to be reliant as ever on foreign OEMs for supply of critical weapons and systems. Apart from the financial burden, the intangible risk of blockage of spares and support due to international political posturing is even greater. Without true indigenization, self-reliance is impossible.

Today, the DPM 2009 is breached in both letter and spirit. DPM 2009 highlights the need for support and encouragement to indigenous manufacturers with D&D capability. In actual practice, this is rarely experienced. It also suggests that DPSUs & DRDO align their procedures accordingly. This does not appear so.

One of the glaring obstacles to successful indigenization is the lack of a collective approach. Aerospace and Defense (A&D) is a highly specialized technology sector with a veil of confidentiality that prevents familiarisation to private industries. Hence, induction of the private industry can only happen if there is adequate knowledge sharing with opportunities for exposure in either DPSUs or the BRDs of the IAF. While this is reflected in some of the paragraphs of DPM 2009, it appears to focus predominantly on procurement from foreign OEMs with only Chapter 15 being devoted to Indigenous D&D. Issues with reference to the specific paragraphs of DPM 2009 are listed below.

Para 2.4.4 – “Indigenous firms should be given all support to produce and supply quality goods”. This does not start and end with periodic seminars and workshops on Indigenisation, but should result in more practical support such as provision and access to airworthy grade raw materials, standard parts, processes, etc. either directly from the BRDs or through a DPSU. There should also be technical knowledge sharing on a ‘need to know’ basis.

2.5.2c – “Exemption from EMD and waiver of Security deposit for MSMEs” – PBGs and Warranty BGs are still insisted by many of the maintenance bases/depots. BGs are issued by banks only against deposits. Hence, this money gets locked up for over 18 months since the BGs roll over from a Security deposit to a Performance/Warranty BG. MSMEs getting into multiple projects cannot afford to lock up precious finances. Refer suggestion under Para 15.2.4.

3.2.5 – “Inter-Services and inter-departmental Acceptability of Registration” – This is meant to be applicable across all Services. However, it is seen that each BRD within the IAF, leave alone other Services, has its own Registration process.

7.10.3 – “Guidelines for levying of LD” – LD needs to be seen in the context of the specific procurement. Firstly, LD needs to be applied only when there is a definite hardship and cost suffered by the buyer, especially in case of routine and repetitive procurement of standard and proven parts. However, application of LD for the indigenous D&D of any item taken up by an Indian industry appears to be contradictory to para 2.4.4. While there is provision for waiving of LD, this is very rarely exercised due to fear of adverse audit comments.

11.2.2 – Repair Contracts – This is primarily aimed at foreign OEMs. However, the same terms are also applied to Indian firms, especially MSMEs, who take on very challenging tasks at very high financial risks at their own cost. Repair of obsolete parts and equipment of foreign origin are tendered for Indian enterprises only when the foreign OEM stops support. In such a scenario, the IAF has no other alternative than to attempt local repairs. Hence, it is neither fair nor encouraging for an Indian MSME to be penalized with LD, PBG & WG for successful execution of the job. Even in the case of unsuccessful attempt, the Indian vendor has already incurred a sizeable loss through expenditure in the process. Further, it is worth recognizing the value of undertaking repairs of foreign OEMs. Repair is one of the best and economical methods of demystifying and deciphering specialized technologies. Access to the inner parts of equipment reveals details of state of art manufacturing technologies, types of components and raw materials used, multi-disciplinary design techniques, methods of ruggedisation, maintainability features, etc. that can be effectively used for indigenous D&D.

11.3.2 – “Unforeseen repairs – Missing parts, PCBs, etc.” – Except in the case of a repeat order, all repairs of OEM equipment would certainly have many unknowns and hence unforeseen issues. In most cases, OEMs do not supply detailed technical documents other than basic guidelines on disassembly and re-assembly. Hence, the 60 days period as a limit for identifying and intimation of unforeseen repairs appears unrealistic, at least for repairs of LRUs. This needs to be made more industry friendly so that it is a win-win situation for the IAF and the industry.

11.8 – Warranty for repairs – It is highly unfair to seek a Warranty on repairs of aged and obsolete equipment since many of the parts other than the repaired part may sequentially fail due to its excessive age. Failure of such aged parts may also consequentially lead to failure of the replaced part. Hence, this is a grey area of the DPM that needs improvement.

13.8.5 – “Data sharing between Services” – This never seems to happen even within each Service, leave alone between them. There is an urgent need to implement this since successful indigenization or repairs in a particular domain (communication/ hydraulics/ controls/ pneumatics/ guidance/etc) can be put to quick and effective use for the benefit of both the industry and the Armed Services, due to similarities in platform systems.

CHAPTER 15 – INDIGENOUS Design & Development

15.1.2 – “Economic viability of indigenization to be established based on likely requirement for 3 to 5 years”. Further refers to “economies of scale so as to make it commercially viable …”. Strangely, many RFQs issued by the BRDs do not even indicate future requirements. A D&D RFQ for qty. 1 or 2 is absolutely meaningless and displays a complete lack of understanding of ROI for private industries. Further, this also makes a mockery of a tender process since bidders can exaggerate the unit price and lower the D&D cost so as to still achieve L1. However, they stand to make higher profits on future production, whenever that happens. This actually works against the interests of the buyer and the Govt. Hence, the evaluation criteria for L1 should include at least the first batch of future supplies which should also be specified in the RFP.

15.2.1c – “Development contracts may be placed with two or more contractors in parallel. EOQ may be placed on L1 contractor”. When future quantities cannot be clearly predicted, only L1 would get the order. However, to keep the option of allowing additional contractors in case of higher quantities, the design of L1 could be used by any other vendor against payment of a royalty. The Royalty amount should be specified as part of original tender bid.

15.2.3 – NCNC contracts – This is one of the most dangerous options for an industry for two reasons.

The buyer is never under any compulsion to procure the developed product on some pretext or the other since there is no commitment.
As price is not pre-negotiated, IFA can insist on an RFQ for bulk supplies and the NCNC vendor could lose the bulk production bid negating the whole purpose of undertaking development at his own cost.

15.2.4 – DPM 2009 states that “Deposits and EMDs need not be insisted from reputed companies”. This option is rarely exercised even with MSMEs with proven track records in A&D sector. A scientific and transparent system of rating MSME vendors based on successful completion of prior projects can be easily implemented. Such rating can be used to either reduce or completely exempt the MSME from EMD or Performance/Warranty deposits. The rating can also consider failures and delays to derate the MSME thus making the system very dynamic. Ideally, this rating system should be common and universally applied across all defense services.

15.3.2 – Design – IPR for indigenous design should be held by the firm developing it. Customer should provide a “Non-Disclosure undertaking” and should not provide the same to any other indigenous supplier.

15.10.2 – Acquiring Manufacturing Drawings – This para makes no mention of IPR for the design realized by the vendor. True value of IPR lies in the recurring profits resulting from long term bulk production and not in the actual design cost. Hence, the IPR ownership should not be transferred to the Services, but should remain with the D&D organization. Alternatively, a royalty amount can be negotiated as part of the tender bid. This topic was discussed at one of the seminars held in Delhi a year ago and Govt. representatives had largely agreed with this argument. As stated in above Para 13.3 and 15.1.2, future quantities are not always stated. Further, insistence of submission of design is neither universally applied nor stated in the RFQ. The matter raises its ugly head only at the successful delivery of the product and at that stage no MSME would have the ability to take a legal stand on this issue since payments would be withheld. This matter therefore needs better clarity in statement.

Miscellaneous Issues:

The concept of IDDM should be brought into DPM and given primacy over all other forms of procurement.

Local Taxes and duties – Exemption certificates, etc. – Services should pay all duties and taxes based on documentary evidence of actual payment. Vendors should not be subjected to harassment by Local governance bodies.

Registration and Categorisation: The matter of registration and categorization of products and services has been misinterpreted by some of the Buyer agencies. It was contented that registration was valid only for the specific type of product/services that the MSME has already delivered. This is incorrect. Eg; An organization with competence and proven track record in electronics should be permitted to bid for any electronic equipment as long as some competence in reverse engineering or design exists.

Conclusion : DPM 2009 needs to be improved further through active and collective participation of all stake holders that includes the Armed Services, DPSUs, large and MSME private sector companies.

Defence Procurement Procedure’s new avatar inspiring; some players seek more tweaking

Leave a reply

The much-awaited changes to India’s Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) were announced last month. This was in line with the promise made by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, after he took over the reins of Ministry of Defence in November 2014. The new look DPP, set to take shape in the next two months, gives major impetus to the Narendra Modi government’s flagship Make in India mission. It has some inspiring elements to boost Indian private companies to undertake research and development in the aerospace and defence (A&D) sector.

One India elicited the views of some of the private A&D players to capture the mood of the industry, which has always felt that enough is not being done to win their hearts. Here are the excerpts from a series of interviews we did recently. Offset mechanism not working in interest of country G Raj Narayan, Managing Director of Radel Advanced Technology (P) Ltd, has been a visible voice in the last couple of years in various A&D forums. He says it was clear from the beginning that the offsets mechanism wasn’t working to the interests of India. “The insistence of the foreign OEMs to dilute the same on the pretext of ‘not finding capable Indian partners’ was only an indirect method of preventing any exposure to Indian companies on related technologies. The only way to improve our state of self-sufficiency is to develop R&D in-house and design from whatever technologies we are presently exposed to (LCA, Jaguar & Mirage), and then move upwards to higher levels indigenously,” says Raj. According to him, the raising of the offset applicability to acquisitions of Rs 2000 crore and above is irrelevant. “The higher preference to ‘indigenously designed, developed and manufactured’ items certainly makes more meaning than the vague ‘Make’ and ‘Make & Buy’ categories. This is a confirmation of the preference for Indian products which needs to be applauded. Further, the focus on enabling and empowering R&D as well as supporting MSMEs through funding is a huge step forward. Though this could still throw up problems in distinguishing between ‘mature and capable’ MSMEs and ‘raw’ MSMEs, proper processes could certainly be set up to ensure that the right company get the right amount of funding appropriate with its track record and status,” Raj added. Radel’s ongoing projects for various military programmes include, auto-selector bomb release system, speed switch, anti-collision lights, cockpit control unit and ground test rigs of various aircraft and helicopters. Introduction of IDDM a good move Puneet Kaura, MD and CEO, Samtel Avionics, says that the introduction of a new category — Indigenous Design Development Manufacturing (IDDM) – is a welcome move. “We welcome the move to introduce the IDDM category in the DPP as it will back companies like us who have proven competencies in indigenous design, development and manufacturing. Furthermore, the announcement of funding by the government for R&D purposes will help build a technology base in the country,” says Puneet, among the early players in the A&D sector. He said the growth of the Indian defence industry has been marred by delays. “The new DPP addresses this through a definitive step to cut down the delays in procurement by reducing the time lag between AoN (acceptance of necessity) and the tender or request for proposal (RFP),” says Puneet. Samtel through its joint venture with HAL, has been developing MFDs for Su-30 MKI within its facility in Greater Noida. The Samtel-HAL JV has already delivered 125 sets of MFDs for Su-30 MKIs. Will boost investments and better quality of products According to Rajeev Kaul, MD & Group CFO, Aequs, told One India that that take on LI policy in the new-look DPP is a positive step. “L1 policy is a bold move and it credits the capability of the bidder. This would encourage quality consciousness and boost investments in better quality products,” says Rajeev. Aequs has been supplying main landing gear shackle for the B787 programme. Aequs manufacturing facilities are located in Belagavi, Bengaluru, and Houston. Offset limit should be brought back to Rs 300 crore Col H.S. Shankar (Retd), CMD, Alpha Design Technologies Pvt Ltd, feels that increasing the offset applicability limit is a retrograde step and will deny Indian industry, particularly MSMEs, large chunk of their work content. “It is our view that offsets (with Rs 300 00 crore and above limit) was working satisfactorily (except for few glitches at MoD) and benefiting Indian Industries enormously. This will be a big blow to Indian industries. The limit should be reviewed and brought back to Rs 300 crore. He said the MSMEs/FICCI had listed many suggestions to the DPP Review Committee, but they were not accepted. “We wanted the ‘Make’ category to be split into two categories: ‘Make’ large industries with higher limits and ‘Make’ MSMEs with a limit of funding up to Rs 500 crore per project,” says Col Shankar. Commenting on the ‘strategic partners,’ the veteran A&D expert felt that it was a retrograde move of brining in ‘public sector mentality’ into private sector by reserving few big players in private sector. “This is a back door entry for big private sectors – something which Kelkar Committee had recommended as ‘Udyog Ratnas’ in 2016 and rejected and not implemented by successive governments,” says Col Shankar. MSME categorisation limits for A&D products must go up Naresh Palta, CEO (Aerospace), Maini Group, said the government funding of 90 per cent for indigenous R&D will spur domestic products and technologies. He also felt that ‘accepting offers in single tender cases’ would remove major hurdles for industries developing niche products. However, Palta felt that the DPP’s new avatar is silent on measures for SME segment. “We want the new policy to increase MSME categorisation limits up to Rs 150 crore for A&D projects specifically. Further taxation relief to Indian products vis-à-vis imports, for level playing. We are still unable to compete our products in the domestic requirements with imported ones due to higher duties and taxation incident,” says Palta.

The original article appeared on One India

A stronger Make in India will beat the Chinese threat

Leave a reply

If India is to match China in both technology and scale, many bottlenecks will have to be removed. The idea of ‘Make in India’ is not just about internal development, but also effectively countering threats from the outside. In terms of both geography and potential, India’s biggest competitor today is China.

To compete with this economically powerful neighbour, India needs development on multiple fronts. While China has raced far ahead of India, today its manufacturing is slowing down, wages are rising and the labour force is dwindling. On the other hand, the Indian labour force is just coming of age. If we are to match China in both technology and scale, many bottlenecks have to be removed. Apart from the well-known issue of poor infrastructure, there are several areas that need to be tackled on a war footing.

Skills: It is estimated that by 2030, India will have the largest labour force in the world. Yet, the availability of a large workforce alone is not enough. Jobs also need to be created and most importantly, skills have to be developed. ‘Make in India’ seems like the perfect platform to absorb an annual 12 million-strong workforce with jobs. However, unless this workforce is equipped with the required skills, India will miss the bus again. China invested in education and is reaping the benefits. Consider this; in 2004, while China had only eight universities in the world’s top 500, and none in the top 200, the current respective figures are 32, and six. China’s universities are now second only to those in the US in terms of the total research output.

The correlation between the quality of education and the nation’s progress is obvious. The Indian government and the private sector should join hands to align education to practice by encouraging meaningful apprenticeships within industries by amending the Apprentices Act, 1961, to make it relevant in the 21st century.

Multi-pronged reform plan

Over the last two decades, China has striven to transform itself into the world’s second biggest economy, through a slew of reforms, including the mass reallocation of labour from low-productivity agriculture to high-productivity manufacturing. What motivated Chinese workers to slog day and night? This is partly answered by a sociological reason: the people of China and other nations in the Far East have always been disciplined.

A dose of strong-arm enforcement injected into oriental values ensured a disciplined work ethic. By combining worker benefits with relaxation of hiring and retrenchment norms in its labour reforms in 1995, China was well on the way to becoming a manufacturing powerhouse. While China does have unions, they are virtually, without exception, under the control of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions which is controlled by the government and the party (Communist Party of China). Collective bargaining, legal strikes or dispute resolution are non-existent. Here, in democratic India, the present labour laws impede industrial growth. Labour reforms are never easy, as there are multiple stakeholders involved, from workmen unions to politicians and the government.

How did China manage to develop absolute advantage in so many industries? The answer is simple — with the government’s whole-hearted help. State-owned banks give loans to local companies — large or small, at rates as low as two per cent, and local governments across China allocate cheap or free land. In India, funds are grudgingly provided to MSMEs at crippling rates of interest. The export subsidies and incentives granted by the Chinese government helped grow a vibrant manufacturing sector with thousands of small, medium, and large industries, focused on high-volume mass-manufacture aimed at exports. In addition, the market access available to China as a result of its WTO membership, contributed to its impressive trade performance. China also created barriers for imports to maintain huge trade surpluses. For example, products that have passed international quality certifications have to again undergo tests like the China Compulsory Certificate (CCC) for entry into the Chinese markets. Hence, today, China is the shop floor of the world.

In India, on the other hand, myriad rules, regulations and harassment are killing the manufacturing industry. The so-called incentives and subsidies for exports are so difficult to access through the maze of red tape, that manufacturing industries, especially the smaller ones, find them unviable. It is not surprising therefore, that a World Bank report ranks India at 130, and China at 84, out of 189 countries, in terms of the ease of doing business. As a result, Chinese products turn out to be cheaper than the local ones in spite of import expenses, though not necessarily better in quality.

The way forward

While India soared ahead digitally, the manufacturing industry was neglected. The government should now aggressively focus on building robust infrastructure from the foundation, providing support to the industries in the form of low interest loans and subsidies. However, the Chinese model of export-oriented industrialisation is not the way to go. Although China is at the helm of global exports, it is now struggling to boost internal consumption. India has the potential to become a thriving manufacturing hub. There are multiple factors in favour of India; it is up to us to leverage them and race ahead. If all the concerns of the manufacturing sector are addressed, we may well see India and China trading places in the future.

The original article appeared on Deccanherald.

In-house innovation

Leave a reply

Design capability is like a capital asset required to churn out high value returns. It is like a compelling fragrance as it spreads across domains. Design and manufacturing together produce a closed loop system of learning, improvement and further innovation. But, if you do not possess this asset, you are only providing low value manufacturing services while allowing an overseas designer to dictate terms forever.

STARTER'S BLOC

Design is a very strong capability since it allows continuous upgradation of products and processes. An ecosystem that encourages innovative design yields new technologies and products thereby leading to large-scale local manufacturing and overall economic growth. Design in India should therefore be the larger objective of Make in India.

Over the last 50 years, there have been many examples of indigenous design. Examples in the ’70s include the Sumeet kitchen mixie, the wet grinder, the Good Knight mosquito repellent and early models of washing machines. In the pre-reforms era, there were many truly Indian products for home consumption. Revolutionary inventions in Indian classical music—a traditional niche area—include Radel’s electronic tambura, tabla, sruti box and veena.

Cut to the present. Why are our large business houses importing simple appliances like bread toasters and electric irons from China? Even in the booming automobile sector, there is not a single vehicle in India that is fully indigenous in design, in spite of large private players having manufactured under licence for over five decades.

Many consumer and industrial products were earlier being manufactured here. Why did these industries turn into traders of imported commodities? Electronics was identified as a sector with high potential in the late ’70s. We missed many opportunities to create a vibrant electronics industry. Companies in the US and Europe offered to set up semiconductor fab plants but we refused. Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea and Taiwan accepted these opportunities and are now miles ahead of India. In the strategic defence sector, India has manufactured battle tanks and aircraft under license for over five decades but doesn’t seem to have learnt how to maintain and support these ageing platforms. On the other hand, in spite of sanctions, the Indian Space Research Organisation demonstrated our capability to experiment, learn and ultimately deliver. ISRO is now launching satellites for international clients at a fractional cost. This is the model to be replicated in defence as well.

The problems of designing and manufacturing in India include long delays for routine matters that result in hidden costs. Exorbitant taxes demanded by authorities, lack of uninterrupted power, water and other infrastructure and rampant corruption by police and tax authorities ensure that Indian entrepreneurs, with a few exceptions, are the least competitive in the world. The last straw for the entrepreneur is the outdated labour laws that encourage undisciplined workers to hold establishments to ransom.

There are no simplistic solutions. Governments need to drastically simplify procedures and cut the red tape. Employees and managers in organisations need to change their work culture and ethics. Chinese organisations execute orders in record time while employees of a typical Indian organisation take days to respond to an email. That’s how they get more orders than us.

The Indian education system, from the primary level, needs to teach students how to think and apply knowledge rather than crack exams. We can still become a manufacturing powerhouse with determination, a change in attitude and the courage of conviction. Time, however, is running out.

The original article appeared on The Week.

This is the level of our engineering graduates

Leave a reply

How imperative is it to skill our engineers? When does skilling really start? At the post-graduate level? Graduate? School?

Let me narrate a recent incident to you, and then you can draw your own conclusions.

This is how an engineering graduate with a further six months training in embedded systems, attempted to solve a simple exercise that I had given her:

The task was to calculate digital samples for generating a sinewave. I casually suggested that she could use Excel, if she wanted. She looked quite puzzled and asked ‘How can Excel calculate the samples’? I said, ‘Can’t you give a formula’? She asked, ‘What formula?’ I said, ‘If you specify ‘x’, the computer can calculate ‘sin x’. Anyway, I said she could do it manually with a calculator also if she so wished.

She came back to me with a table written on her notebook with columns of ‘x in 1 degree increments’, ‘x in radians’, ‘sin x in decimal’, ‘Hex value in 8 bits’. She had stopped at 15 degrees since it was taking her too much time to manually calculate the entire 360 degrees. I also noticed that she had not taken the negative values of sin x. So, I asked her to calculate just one sample in the 2nd and 3rd quadrant.
She shot back, ‘Quadrant’?
I said ‘yes. Do you know what is a quadrant’?
She shook her head and sheepishly said, ‘I’ve forgotten. You mean 270 degrees?’
I asked ‘What is the first quadrant’?
‘Zero’
Without revealing any anger in my voice, I asked, ‘What is the range of the first quadrant’?
‘Zero. No, 90’
‘What is the second quadrant’?
‘180’
‘What is the third quadrant’?
‘270’
At that point I lost my patience and told her, ‘First quadrant is from 0 to 90. Can you now identify the 3rd quadrant’?
‘Yes sir. It is 180 to 270’.
Quite relieved at this huge success, I said, ‘Can you now just calculate 16 samples of a full wave and show me the result’?
She came back after 15 minutes and showed me a set of calculations that were all wrong. She had no idea what she had to do.
I thought I would go to the absolute basics and asked her ‘What is sin 30’?
She quickly whipped out her scientific calculator. I said, ‘You don’t need a calculator for that. Can you not draw a triangle and calculate’?
She stared at me as if I was out of my mind. Then she drew a vague triangle in which not even one angle was a right angle.
So, I drew one and denoted x as the ‘opposite’ and y as the hypotenuse. I said ‘Can you now calculate sin 30’?
‘But both x and y are unknown’.
I helped her by saying that ‘y’, the hypotenuse was 1. ‘Can you now calculate x’?
She quickly and triumphantly wrote ‘x= y*sin 30’!
‘I think you can calculate the value of x in relation to y, can’t you’?
An empty stare.
‘If one angle is 30 in a right-angled triangle, what would be the other?’ I asked.
’30 degrees’!
‘What is the sum of all three angles in a triangle’?
‘180. So, the other angle should be 60’.
So, I drew a mirrored triangle beneath the existing one to create the resultant equilateral triangle and asked ‘Does this shape give you any hints?’
An empty stare. So, I asked ‘Do you see any symmetry in the super triangle’?
‘Yes! If one is x, the other is (1-x)’!
I slapped my forehead and said ‘If there’s an isosceles triangle, can you guess x’?
‘It is x/2’.
With many more minutes of prodding and slapping my forehead, she arrived at ‘sin 30 = 0.5’
‘Now that you’ve managed to calculate sin 30, can you now calculate sin 45′?
She drew another triangle just like the 30 degree triangle, wrote x=0.5 and y=1 and marked the angle as ’45’.
I remarked ‘How did you mark x as 0.5′?
‘Sir, we just worked it out’!
I let it be and asked, ‘If one angle is 45 in a right angled triangle, what is the other angle’?
I was quite relieved that she did not go for her calculator. She actually blurted out ’45’ in just under 35 secs.
‘Great! If two angles are 45, can you figure out any relationship between any two sides’?
‘The base (adjacent) will be root 2’.
I said ‘If the two angles are 45, which two sides would be equal’?
Losing patience, I identified the base and the opposite sides as ‘1’. ‘Can you now calculate the hypotenuse’?
A blank stare forced me to draw dotted squares on the three sides and I asked ‘Does this picture now tell you anything’?
She shook her head. I asked ‘Have you heard of Pythagoras theorem’?
‘I have forgotten, Sir’.
Assuming that x, y & z may be more confusing than the a,b & c that we used to be taught in school, I wrote the latter.
No use.
So, I just wrote the formula c² = a² + b².
Voila! ‘Root 2’ came the answer at last!!!!

‘Now that you have managed to calculate sin 30 and sin 45, can you now do sin 60’?
‘Sure’ was the very confident and proud reply.
She proceeded to draw yet another triangle that looked exactly like the first one and promptly wrote 60 in place of the 30.
She wrote ‘1’ on the hypotenuse and ‘1.5’ on the side opposite 60.
I was horrified.
‘How did you get 1.5 on that side’?
‘For a 15 degree increase from 30 to 45, that side increased from 0.5 to 1. So, for another 15 degree increase, it will increase by another 0.5’!
I thought to myself, “Absolutely brilliant logic”, but preferred to tell her calmly, ‘That’s not correct logic. If that was so, what would happen if the angle increased to 90’?

She proceeded to write two superimposed vertical lines for some distance and said, ‘It will be 2’.
‘How did you get 2? Why not 2.5’?
‘No, it can’t be 2.5’
‘But, you know what sin 90 is in reality, don’t you’?
‘Yes. 1’.
‘So, isn’t your logic wrong’?
‘Yes, Sir’.
‘So, now go back to your first triangle that you drew for sin 30. There’s something that you can see right there for 60’, I said.
She didn’t get it. So, I pointed out the 60 degree angle at the top of the triangle and asked ‘Can you write the sin 60 with reference to this angle’?
‘But that angle is in reverse. It goes beyond 180′.
I could not believe that I was listening to all this coming from an engineering graduate. Maintaining my composure, I took a deep breath.
I quickly drew another triangle as a mirror image of the 30 degree example and asked ‘Does this make any difference to the sin 30 just because the triangle is reversed’?
I was relieved when she said ‘No’.
‘So, can you now calculate sin 60 in the same triangle as the sin 30’?
‘Yes. It is 0.75’.
With anger and pain very visible on my face, I asked ‘How did you get that? Did you apply Pythagoras theorem’?
‘Oh yes. I forgot to do the squaring and rooting, Sir’!

If an engineering graduate has not understood the basics of what she studied in school, how did she not only progress through college but also get marks of over 60 and 70%? So, what’s the use of the examination system, not to talk of the class room lectures? If she does not even know the basic school-level geometry of a right angled triangle, let alone remember the name ‘Pythagoras theorem’, what science is she going to apply in life? What’s even more shocking to me is that many people tell me that 75% of the graduates are of this standard.

The question remains – If our engineering graduates do not learn how to apply basic mathematical, engineering and science concepts to solve a problem, what do we mean by “Make in India”?

Indian Aerospace SMEs ready to match Global Quality Standards

Leave a reply

This is the most appropriate time for our prime minister’s campaign of Make In India. We need to manufacture not only our own consumer durables and industrial products, but also the products required for the Aerospace & Defence sector. In fact it’s more appropriate for Make In India to be applied to the Aerospace and Defence since it involves the security of our nation and the self-reliance of our nation to defend and use our own equipment. We have been talking about self-reliance for more than five decades now.

But it’s unfortunate that we have not been able to extend the indigenous content of our arms and equipment including aircraft and battle tanks beyond 60%. It’s therefore high time that we all put our heads together. There is no dearth of talent, there is no dearth of knowledge, there is no dearth of man power, in fact India boasts of the largest engineering manpower talent and our engineering manpower is catering to the needs of global companies for application of their ideas and capabilities in products that are developed abroad. So why not we do it for ourselves? It’s therefore essential that the Indian SMEs are integrated into this whole plan of action.

“The Indian SMEs had proven themselves beyond any doubts by their contributions in the automotive sector and we have now reached a stage where Indian automobiles and their parts are exported globally”

So why can’t we do this for the Aerospace sector too? The Indian SMEs have their own core competence in their domains such as hydraulics, pneumatics, mechanical machining, fabrication, electronics, etc.

So it’s only a small quantum jump that they need to take to integrate themselves into the Aerospace & Defense sector and provide the most reliable, most cost effective and made in India products for not only the Indian market, but also export them abroad.

Time to lift MSMEs from ‘garage-type’ operations in defence

Leave a reply

Medium, small and micro enterprises (MSMEs) in the defence and aerospace sector can be ‘game changers’ by contributing their bit to the Prime Minister’s ‘Make in India’ call, but fear they may end up in ‘garage-type operations’ if the required support is not extended.With modern technology in their hands and an instant connect with global trends, what MSMEs need most is credit support and hand-holding by bigger players in the sector.

“There are immense capabilities in MSMEs in aerospace and defence, but they are restricted to being vendors for low value-added services”.

One way to tap into the huge talent pool could be to have special classification of “defence MSMEs’, with special funding and support mechanisms, such as exclusive clusters tied to bigger players in the sector, such as PSUs and the Tata’s.

What has raised hopes among MSMEs in the sector is the ₹100-crore technology fund announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The feeling we get is that a part of this fund will be apportioned to critical projects that involve technology, indigenisation. Also, about a 75 per cent grant for design development… if that happens, it will be great news.

“If India is serious about being self-reliant in defence production, it needs to nurture and offer an enabling ecosystem to MSMEs,” unless this is done, India may have to face “crippling effects’ of over-reliance on imports, which often leads to buying outdated foreign technology.

“In the so-called technology transfers that happen, they only give drawings, no design. And most often, the technology that is given is outdated, at least two generations down, and they make a couple of billion dollars,”

India needs to develop technology on its own. It has the expertise and knowledge, all it needs is mapping of MSMEs in the defence sector and offer credit support.