Defence

1. Got this interesting read...
How The Indian Navy Is Ensuring High Indigenous Content In Its Project -75 (I) Submarines
by Prakhar Gupta
The Indian Navy, by far, is the most self-reliant of the three defence services and is way ahead of
the Army and the Air Force in terms of indigenous content of its combat units. It was the first to
develop in-house designing capabilities by setting up a dedicated bureau just years after India’s
independence. Today, a large number of its surface vessels are constructed by Indian shipyards
with indigenous content going up to 81 per cent in some cases. And now, this trend is also
becoming evident in the construction of submarines.
The Kalvari-class (Scorpene-class) submarines of the Indian Navy, some of which are currently
under construction at the Mumbai-based Mazagon Dock Limited, have between 30 to 40 per
centindigenous content. While indigenous content on the Kalvari-class boats is not exceptionally
high due to contract stipulations, the Indian Navy has sought to do away with this restriction in
Project-75 (I), under which six conventional submarines are to be built in India.
Among other things, the navy has asked for the indigenisation of pressure hull steel, introduction
of indigenous Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) module, and the integration of home-grown
torpedos and submarine-launched cruise missile on its Project-75 (I) submarines to increase the
level of indigenous content.
1) Pressure Hull Steel
Most submarines have two hulls, one inside the other. The inner hull, which is the main load-
bearing structure of a submarine and is designed to withstand the compressive forces associated
with hydrostatic pressure, is the pressure hull. Under this project,reports say, the Indian Navy has
asked for the use of indigenous steel for the construction of the submarine’s pressure hull. The
Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), along with the Indian Navy’s Directorate of Naval Design
and the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, has been developing a grade
calledDMR292A for “underwater projects”, a euphemism for submarines. This grade, reports
say, could be used for the construction of hulls of submarines being built under Project-75 (I) and
India’s fleet of indigenous nuclear submarines.
In 2014, the government had saidthat Project-75 (I) was facing delays, due to, among other
things, the “difficulties in import of warship grade steel and the delay in indigenous development
of warship grade steel”.
In the past, the Indian Navy has benefited greatly from the indigenisation of warship grade
steel. DMR249A, a special grade high-tensile steel developed by the state-owned SAIL at its plant
in Chhattisgarh’s Bhilai, is being extensively used by shipyards in the construction of warships for
the Indian Navy. INS Kamorta and INS Kadmatt, anti-submarine warfare corvettes of the Indian
Navy commissioned in 2014 and 2016, respectively, are built entirely of DMR249A grade steel.
By 2017, SAIL had supplied 50,000 tonnes of DMR249A grade steel for various projects.
SAIL has also provided over 28,000 tonnes of the warship-grade steel for India’s first Indigenous
Aircraft Carrier (IAC), christened Vikrant. While DMR249A has been used for IAC’s hull and body, a
new grade called DMR249B has been used to build the flight deck, which should be capable of
withstanding repeated impact of 20-30 tonne fighter aircraft landing. For the construction of the
floor of compartments that house engines and generators, SAIL has supplied a third variety, called
DMR Z25.
2) Air-Independent Propulsion
The navy wanted the indigenously Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) module, developed by the
Naval Materials Research Laboratory, installed on the last two of its six Kalvari-class diesel-
electric submarines being built by the Mazagon Dock. However, delays derailed the plan. Now,
the navy wants the module to be introduced on the submarines to be built under Project-75 (I).
The module, which is capable of significantly increasing a submarine’s underwater endurance,

was in an advanced stage of trials as of March 2018.
AIP module gives a submarine the ability to remain submerged for a long time without surfacing. A
diesel-electric submarine (SSK) has to snorkel frequently to recharge its batteries which power its
propellers and other equipment. The process of snorkelling involves travelling just below the
surface of the water with the submarine’s periscope and generator exhaust pipe above the water
surface. Modern radars, such as the Telephonics’ AN/APS-153(V), which will equip the MH-60R
helos being acquired by the Indian Navy for anti-submarine warfare, can easily detect periscope
and exhaust pipes, taking away the element of surprise critical for submarines.
The Indian Navy is also planning tointroduce the AIP module on its Kalvari-class boats when they
go for first major refit. The first of the Kalavari-class, INS Kalvari, inducted in 2017, is expected to
go for refit around 2023.
3) Heavyweight Torpedoes
In 2013, when the VVIP chopper scam surfaced, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance
government banned not just AgustaWestland, the maker of the helos, but the entire group -
Finmeccanica - of which it was a part. This whimsical blacklisting ended up costing the navy dear.
An order for 96 Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes, which were to being procured for the Kalvari-
class and Arihant-class boats of the Indian Navy, wascancelled because these were built by
Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei, a company part of the banned Finmeccanica group.
As a result, the navy had to induct INS Kalvari and INS Arihant without new heavyweight
torpedoes. INS Kalvari currently shares 64 obsolescent, unreliableGerman SUT torpedoes with
four HDW Shishumar-class boats.
Taking lessons, the Navy has asked for the integration of indigenous heavyweight torpedoes on
the boats to be built under Project-75 (I).
The Defence Research and Development Organisation has developed a heavyweight torpedo -
Varunastra - for surface ships, and, reports say, is currently working on a submarine-launched
version. Given the relatively high cost of imported torpedoes, an Indigenous one will be a boost
for the navy.
Varunastra, which has a range of around 40 kilometers, has been inducted by the navy for use by
its surface vessels. The navy has ordered 73 of these. It can be used from Kolkata, Delhi, Teg,
Talwar and Kamorta-class vessels.
4) Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile
The Indian Navy wants its Project-75 (I) boats to be capable of carrying 12 land-attack and anti-
ship cruise missiles.
India currently has two cruise missiles - the in-service supersonic BrahMos and the under-
development subsonic Nirbhay. In all likelihood, a version of the BrahMos cruise missile will equip
the Project-75 (I) boats. According to its maker, BrahMos Aerospace, the missile can be fired from
a depth of 40-50 meters, and all stimulation trials related to underwater launch have been
completed.
A submarine-launched version of the Indo-Russian missile wassuccessfully test-fired from a

submerged platform in 2013. Back then, the Chief Executive Officer of BrahMos Aerospace, Dr A
Sivathanu Pillai, had said that the “BrahMos missile is fully ready for fitment in P75 (I) of Indian
Navy in vertical launch configuration which will make it one of the most powerful weapon
platforms in the World.”
Moreover, Russia has said that it has already worked out the option of integrating the submarine-
launched version of the BrahMos missile on its Amur-class submarines which have beenoffered to
India under Project-75 (I).
Apart from reducing the import cost, integration of a home-grown cruise missile will address the
issue of availability and upgrade. An indigenous system is much more likely to be available to the
navy at short notice, and, most importantly, will be much easier to upgrade for future use than one
which is imported. As the BrahMos is also used by a number of surface vessels of the
navy, commonalitywill be another major advantage of its integration on new submarines
Submarines Active
Indian Navy Submarines
Kalvari Class
INS Kalvari is the first of the six Scorpene class submarines built under
Project 75.The Submarine was commissioned on 14 December 2017.
Name Pennant No. Date of Commission
Kalvari S 21 14 Dec 2017

Chakra Class
INS Chakra is an 8,140-tonne Akula class, nuclear-powered submarine..The
submarine was commissioned on 04 April, 2012.
Name Pennant No. Date of Commission
Chakra S 71 04 Apr 2012

Sindhughosh Class
Sindhughosh class submarines are the Kilo class diesel-electric submarines.
They are designated 877EKM, and were built under a contract between
Rosvooruzhenie and the Ministry of Defence (India).
The submarines have a displacement of 3,000 tonnes, a maximum diving
depth of 300 meters, top speed of 18 knots, and are able to operate solo for
45 days with a crew of 53.
Name Pennant No Date of Commission
Sindhugosh S 55 30 Apr 1986
Sindhudhvaj S 56 12 Jun 1987
Sindhuraj S 57 20 Oct 1987
Sindhuvir S 58 26 Aug 1988
Sindhuratna S 59 22 Dec 1988
Sindhukesari S 60 16 Feb 1989
Sindhukirti S 61 04 Jan 1990
Sindhuvijay S 62 08 Mar 1991

Sindhushashtra S 65 19 Jul 2000
Shishumar Class
The Shishumar class vessels (Type 1500) are diesel-electric
submarines..These submarines are developed by the German yard
Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW).The first two of these vessels were
built by HDW at Kiel, while the remainder have been built at Mazagon Dock
Limited (MDL) Mumbai. The ships were commissioned between 1986 and
1994. These submarines have a displacement of 1660 tons when surfaced, a
speed of 22 knots (41 km/h), and a complement of 40 including eight officers.
The submarines has the provision of an IKL-designed escape system.
Name Pennant No. Date of Commissioning
Shishumar S 44 22 Sep 1986
Shankush S 45 20 Nov 1986
Shalki S 46 07 Feb 1992
Shankul S 47 28 May 1994

NOTE:-All Submarines are prefixed with letters 'INS' when being referred to
by their Indian Navy designated Names
List of submarine classes in service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The list of submarine classes in service includes all submarine classes
currently in service with navies or other armed forces worldwide. For surface
combatants, see the list of naval ship classes in service.
Contents
1 No
n-
nu
cle
Nu ar
Di
cle su
es
Ba Gu ar- b Sp
el-
llis ide po m eci
ele Mi
tic d we ari al
ctri dg
mi mi re ne mi
c et
ssi ssi d s ssi Se
att su
le le att wit on e
2 3 4 ac 5 6 b 7 8 9
su su ac h su als
k m
b b k air b o
su ari
m m su - m
b ne
ari ari b ind ari
m s
ne ne m ep ne
ari
s s ari en s
ne
ne de
s
s nt
pr
op
uls
ion
ReferencesBallistic missile submarines[edit]
• Arihant Class ballistic missile submarine (Project ATV)
◦ Builder: India
◦ Displacement: 6,600 tons
◦ Operator: Indian Navy : 1 in service, 3 under construction
• Borei-class ballistic missile submarine (Project 955 Borey)
◦ Builder: Russia
◦ Operator: Russian Navy: 3 in service, 1 outfitting, Russia to
Float Out New Borey Class Sub on Dec. 30, + 4 ships building
• Delta-class ballistic missile submarine (Project 667BDR Kal'mar /
667BDRM Del'fin)
◦ Builder: Soviet Union / Russia
◦ Operator: Russian Navy: 9 in service, including 3 Delta III and
6 Delta IV
• Jin-class ballistic missile submarine (Type 094)
◦ Builder: People's Republic of China
◦ Operator: People's Liberation Army Navy: 4 in service
• Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN 726)
◦ Builder: United States
◦ Operator: United States Navy: 14 in service with ballistic
missiles
• Sinpo-class submarine (Gorae/Pongdae)
◦ North Korea
◦ Displacement: 1,650~2,000 tons
◦ Operator: Korean People's Army Naval Force : 1 in service
• Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarine
◦ Builder: France
◦ Operator: French Navy: 4 in service
• Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarine (Project 941 Akula)
◦ Operator: Russian Navy: 1 in active service of 6 built, 2 in
reserve.
• Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarine
◦ Builder United Kingdom
◦ Operator: Royal Navy: 4 in service
• Xia-class ballistic missile submarine (Type 092)
Guided missile submarines[edit]
• Oscar-class submarine (Project 949A Antey)
◦ Operator: Russian Navy: 8 in active service plus 2 in reserve
• Ohio-class "Tactical Trident": Special Forces and Super Strike (SSGN
726)
◦ Operator: United States Navy: 4 in active service each with
~154 Tomahawks
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]
• Akula-class submarine (Project 971 Shchuka)
◦ Operator:
▪ Russian Navy: 11 in service, including 3 Improved Akula
and 2 Akula II
▪ Indian Navy: 1 Akula II in active service and 1 planned[1]
• Astute-class submarine
◦ Builder: United Kingdom
◦ Operator: Royal Navy: 3 in service, 1 being fitted out & 3
under construction out of a total of 7 (ordered) in class
• Barracuda-class submarine
◦ Builder: France
◦ Operator:
▪ French Navy: 3 being built, 6 planned
▪ Royal Australian Navy: 12 of the non-nuclear Shortfin-
variant planned for
• Han-class attack submarine (Type 091)
◦ Operator: People's Liberation Army Navy: 3 in service, 2
Decommissioned
• Los Angeles-class attack submarine (SSN 688)
◦ Operator: United States Navy: 32 in service
• Rubis / Amethyste-class attack submarine
◦ Builder: France
◦ Operator: French Navy: 6 in service
• Seawolf-class attack submarine (SSN 21)
◦ Operator: United States Navy: 3 in service (1 as special
mission support submarine see USS Jimmy Carter)
• Yasen-class submarine (Project 885)
◦ Builder: Russia
◦ Operator: 2 Building
• Shang-class attack submarine (Type 093)
• Sierra-class submarine (Project 945)
◦ Builder: Soviet Union
◦ Operator: Russian Navy: 3 in service, including one Sierra I
and two Sierra II submarines
• Trafalgar-class submarine
◦ Operator: Royal Navy: 3 in service out of 7 built
• Victor-class submarine (Victor III Project 671)
◦ Operator: Russian Navy: 8 in service
• Virginia-class submarine (SSN 774)
Diesel-electric attack submarines[edit]
• Agosta-class submarine
◦ Builder: France / Spain
◦ Operators:
▪ Pakistan Navy : 5 in service
▪ Spanish Navy: 4 in service
• Challenger-class submarine (ex-Sjöormen class)
◦ Builder: Sweden
◦ Operator: Republic of Singapore Navy: 4 in service
• Collins-class submarine
◦ Builder: Australia
◦ Operator: Royal Australian Navy: 6 in service
• Dolphin-class submarine
◦ Builder: Germany
◦ Operator: Israeli Navy: 3 in service, 3 AIP building/ordered
• Kilo-class submarine (Project 877 Paltus and Project 636)
◦ Operators:
▪ Indian Navy: 9 Kilo, 1 exploded, known as the
Sindhughosh class
▪ People's Liberation Army Navy: 2 Kilo and 10 Improved
Kilo in service
▪ Russian Navy: 17 in service plus a number of reserves,
6 Improved Kilo ordered
▪ Algerian National Navy: 2 Original Kilo and 2 Improved
Kilo
▪ Polish Navy: 1 Kilo
▪ Islamic Republic of Iran Navy: 3 Kilo
▪ Romanian Naval Forces: 1 Kilo
▪ Vietnam People's Navy: 1 Kilo and 5 Improved Kilo in
service
• Kobben-class (Type 207) submarine
◦ Displacement: 485 tons
◦ Operators: Polish Navy: 4 in service, handed over from
Norway
• Ming-class (Type 035) submarine
• Oyashio-class submarine
◦ Builder: Japan
◦ Operator: Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force: 11 in service
• Romeo-class submarine
◦ Operators:
▪ Bulgarian Navy: 1 of many delivered remains in service,
restricted capabilities
• Sauro-class submarine
◦ Builder: Italy
◦ Operator: Marina Militare: 4 in service
• Song-class submarine
• TR-1700-class submarine
◦ Operators: Argentine Navy: 1 in service
• Type 209 submarine
◦ Displacement: 1,230/1,290/1,586 tons
◦ Operators:
▪ Argentine Navy: 1 in service
▪ Brazilian Navy: 5 in service
▪ Chilean Navy: 2 in service
▪ Colombian National Navy: 2 in service
▪ Ecuadorian Navy: 2 in service
▪ Hellenic Navy: 7 in service
▪ Indian Navy: 4 in service
▪ Indonesian Navy: 2 in service, 2 under sea trial, 1 under
construction
▪ Peruvian Navy: 6 in service
▪ South African Navy: 3 in service
▪ Republic of Korea Navy: 9 in service
▪ Turkish Naval Forces: 14 in service
▪ Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela: 2 in service
• Ula-class (Type 210) submarine
◦ Operator: Royal Norwegian Navy: 6 in service
• Victoria-class hunter-killer submarine (SSK 876)
◦ Operator: Royal Canadian Navy: 4 in service
• Walrus-class submarine
◦ Builder: Netherlands
◦ Operator: Royal Netherlands Navy: 4 in service
• Zwaardvis-class submarine
◦ Builder: Netherlands
◦ Operator: Republic of China Navy: 2 in service
• Sang-O-class submarine
◦ Builder: North Korea
◦ Operator: Korean People's Army Naval Force: 40 in service
• Sinpo-class submarine
◦ Operator: Korean People's Army Naval Force: 1 in service
• Fateh-class submarine
◦ Builder: Iran
◦ Operator: Islamic Republic of Iran Navy: 1 in service
• Nahang-class submarine
◦ Builder: Iran
◦ Displacement: 350-400 tons
Non-nuclear submarines with air-independent propulsion[edit]
• Gotland class
◦ Builder: Sweden,
◦ Operators: Swedish Navy: 3 in service
• Lada-class submarine (Project 677 Lada)
◦ Builder: Russia
◦ Operators: Russian Navy: 1 in service, 3 ordered
• Qing-class submarine
• S-80 class
◦ Builder: Spain
◦ Operator: Spanish Navy: 4 building
• Scorpène class
◦ Builder: France / Spain
◦ Operator:
▪ Brazilian Navy: 4 ordered/building
▪ Chilean Navy: 2 in service
▪ Indian Navy: 1 in service, 5 under construction
▪ Royal Malaysian Navy: 2 in service
• Sōryū class
◦ Builder: Japan
◦ Operators: Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force: 9 in service,
3 building or planned
◦ Builders: Germany / Italy
◦ Operators:
▪ German Navy: 4 in service, 2 ordered, 2 more planned
▪ Marina Militare: 4 in service
◦ Builder: Germany,
◦ Operators:
▪ Hellenic Navy: 4 in service
▪ Republic of Korea Navy: 3 in service, 6 building/ordered
▪ Portuguese Navy: 2 in service
▪ Turkish Naval Forces: 6 ordered
• Västergötland-class submarine / Archer-class submarine
◦ Builder: Sweden
◦ Operator:
▪ Swedish Navy: 2 in service
▪ Republic of Singapore Navy: 2 on a delivery program
• Yuan-class submarine
◦ Operator: People's Liberation Army Navy: 17 in service, 3
building
Midget submarines[edit]
• Yugo-class submarine
◦ Displacement: 90 up to 110 tons
• Yono-class submarine
◦ Operator: North Korea: <36 in service
• Ghadir-class submarine
◦ Builder: Iran
Special mission submarines[edit]
• Mystic-class deep sea rescue submersible (DSRV 1)
• Paltus-class special mission submarine (Project 1083.1)
◦ Builder: Russia
◦ Operator: Russian Navy
• Uniform-class special mission submarine (Project 1910 Kashalot)
◦ Operator: Russian Navy
Arihant-class submarine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Class overview
Name: Arihant
Builders: Navy Shipbuilding Centre,
Visakhapatnam[1]
Operators: Indian Navy
Cost: ₹4,000 crore (US$560 million) per
submarine[2]
In 2016
commission:
Planned: 4
Building: 3[3]
Active: 1[4]
General characteristics
Type: Nuclear powered ballistic missile
submarine
Displacement: 6,000 tonnes (5,900 long tons; 6,600
short tons) surfaced[5]
Length: 112 m (367 ft)[5]
Beam: 11 m (36 ft)
Draft: 10 m (33 ft)
Installed • 1 × pressurised water reactor[6]
power: • 83 MW (111,000 hp)
Propulsion: • 1 × propeller shaft
• Nuclear
Speed: • Surfaced: 12–15 knots (22–28 km/h)
• Submerged: 24 knots (44 km/h)
Range: unlimited except by food supplies
Test depth: 300 m (980 ft)
Complement: 95
Sensors and USHUS sonar
processing
systems:
Armament: • 12 × K15 SLBM (750 km or 470 mi
range) or 4 × K-4 SLBM (3,500 km or
2,200 mi range)[6]
• 6 × 21" (533 mm) torpedo tubes
– est 30 charges (torpedoes, cruise
missiles or mines)[7]
The Arihant class (Sanskrit, for Slayer of Enemies) is a class of nuclear-
powered ballistic missile submarines being built for the Indian Navy. They
were developed under the ₹90,000 crore (US$13 billion) Advanced
Technology Vessel (ATV) project to design and build nuclear-powered
submarines.[2]
The lead vessel of the class, INS Arihant was launched in 2009 and after
extensive sea trials, was confirmed to be commissioned in August 2016.[8][9]
[10] Arihant is the first ballistic missile submarine to have been built by a
country other than one of the five permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council.[11]
Contents
1 De
Shi Ref
De vel Se
Hist ps Tim er
scr op e
or 2 3 4 in 5 eli 6 7 en 8
ipti m als
y cla ne ce
on en o
ss s
t
External linksHistory[edit]
In December 1971, during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the US President
Richard Nixon sent a carrier battle group named Task Force 74, led by the
nuclear-powered USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal in an attempt to
intimidate India.[12][13] In response, the Soviet Union sent a submarine armed
with nuclear missiles from Vladivostok to trail the US task force.[14] The event
demonstrated the significance of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile
submarines to then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.[15] Following the 1974
Smiling Buddha nuclear test, the Director of Marine Engineering (DME) at
Naval Headquarters initiated a technical feasibility study for an indigenous
nuclear propulsion system (Project 932).[16]
The Indian Navy's Advanced Technology Vessel project to design and
construct a nuclear submarine took shape in the 1990s.[17] Then Defence
Minister George Fernandes confirmed the project in 1998.[18] The initial intent
of the project was to design nuclear-powered fast attack submarines, though
following nuclear tests conducted by India in 1998 at Pokhran Test Range
and the Indian pledge of no first use, the project was re-aligned towards the
design of a ballistic missile submarine in order to complete India's nuclear
triad.[19][20][21]
Description[edit]
The Arihant-class submarines are nuclear powered ballistic missile
submarines built under the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project.[22][23]
[24][25][26][27] They will be the first nuclear submarines designed and built by
India.[28] The submarines are 112 m (367 ft) long with a beam of 11 m (36 ft),
a draught of 10 m (33 ft), displacement of 6,000 tonnes (5,900 long tons;
6,600 short tons) and a diving depth of 300 m (980 ft). The complement is
about 95, including officers and sailors.[29] The boats are powered by a single
seven blade propeller powered by an 83 MW (111,000 hp) pressurised water
reactor and can achieve a maximum speed of 12–15 knots (22–28 km/h)
when surfaced and 24 knots (44 km/h) when submerged.[29]
The submarines have four launch tubes in their hump and can carry up to 12
K-15 Sagarika missiles with one warhead each (with a range of 750 km or
470 mi) or 4 K-4 missiles (with a range of 3,500 km or 2,200 mi).[30][31] The
submarines are similar to the Akula-class submarine of Russia.[29] The Indian
Navy will train on INS Chakra, an Akula-class submarine leased from Russia
in 2012.[32][33]
Development[edit]
The submarines are powered by a pressurised water reactor with highly
enriched uranium fuel.[34][35] The miniaturized version of the reactor was
designed and built by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) at the
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) in Kalpakkam.[36] It
included a 42-metre (138 ft) section of the submarine's pressure hull
containing the shielding tank with water and the reactor, a control room, as
well as an auxiliary control room for monitoring safety parameters.[37] The
prototype reactor became critical on 11 November 2003 and was declared
operational on 22 September 2006.[15] Successful operation of the prototype
for three years enabled the production version of the reactor for Arihant.[38][39]
The reactor subsystems were tested at the Machinery Test Center in
Visakhapatnam.[40] Facilities for loading and replacing the fuel cores of the
naval reactors in berthed submarines were also established.[15]
The detailed engineering of the design was implemented at Larsen &
Toubro's submarine design centre at their Hazira shipbuilding facility.[41] Tata
Power SED built the control systems for the submarine.[42] The steam
turbines and associated systems integrated with the reactor were supplied by
Walchandnagar Industries.[43] The lead vessel underwent a long and
extensive process of testing after its launch in July 2009.[44] The propulsion
and power systems were tested with high-pressure steam trials followed by
harbor-acceptance trials that included submersion tests by flooding its ballast
tanks and controlled dives to limited depths.[45] INS Arihant's reactor went
critical for the first time on 10 August 2013.[46] On 13 December 2014, the
submarine set off for its extensive sea trials.[47][48]
Ships in class[edit]
Conceptual drawing of INS Arihant

Exact number of planned submarines remains unclear, according to media
reports about three to six submarines are planned to be built.[49][50][51][52][53][54]
[55] The first boat of the class, INS Arihant, was commissioned in August 2016.
[8][56] The first four vessels are expected to be commissioned by 2023.[6] In
December 2014, the work on a second nuclear reactor began and the second
boat, INS Arighat is being prepared for sea trials.[2] The next three ships in the
class, after the lead ship, will be larger and have 8 missile launch tubes to
carry up to 8 K4 and a more powerful pressurized water reactor than INS
Arihant. A larger follow on class to the arihant class is also planned, these
new boats will be capable of carrying 12 to 16 ballistic missiles.[57][58] The first
submarine was commissioned into the Indian Navy in August 2016.[59]
Laid
Pen Commissi
Name dow Launch Sea Trials Status
nant on
n
Fleet I
SSB 13
INS Arih 199 26 July August In
N December
ant 7[61] 2009 2016 service[9]
80[60] 2014 [62]
Fleet II
19 Not
INS Arig 201 Outfitting[6][65]
November expected
hat 0[61] [61]
2017[63][64] till 2020[2]
S4 Late 2018 Under
(codena (expected) constructi
me)[58] [63] on[66]
S4* Under
(codena constructi
me)[58] on
Timeline[edit]
Date Event
Confirmation of ATV project by the then Defence
19 May 1998
Minister George Fernandes
11 November 2003 Prototype nuclear reactor becomes critical
22 September 2006 Nuclear reactor is declared operational
Lead vessel of the class, INS Arihant, is formally
26 July 2009
launched
Arihant's on-board nuclear reactor attains
10 August 2013
criticality
INS Arihant begins extensive sea & weapons
13 December 2014
trials
INS Arihant successfully test-fired dummy B5
25 November 2015
missile
31 March 2016 INS Arihant successfully test-fired K4 missile
August 2016 INS Arihant commissioned.[8]
19 Nov 2017 INS Arighat launched[2]
Early 2018 INS Arighat to begin sea trials[61]
2019 INS Arighat to be delivered.[8][61]
2.
FIGHTER AIRCRAFTS
SU-30 MKI : Twin seater twin engine multirole fighter of Russian origin which
carries One X 30mm GSH gun alongwith 8000 kg external armament. It is
capable of carrying a variety of medium-range guided air to air missiles with
active or semi-active radar or Infra red homing close range missiles. It has a
max speed of 2500 km/hr (Mach 2.35).
Mirage-2000 : A single seater air defence and multi-role fighter of French

origin powered by a single engine can attain max speed of 2495 km/hr(Mach
2.3). It carries two 30 mm integral cannons and two matra super 530D
medium-range and two R-550 magic II close combat missiles on external
stations.
MiG-29 : Twin engine, single seater air superiority fighter aircraft of Russian
origin capable of attaining max. speed of 2445 km per hour (Mach-2.3). It has
a combat ceiling of 17 km. It carries a 30 mm cannon alongwith four R-60
close combat and two R-27 R medium range radar guided missiles.
MiG-27 : Single engine, single seater tactical strike fighter aircraft of Russian
origin having a max. speed of 1700 km/hr (Mach 1.6). It carries one 23 mm
six-barrel rotary integral cannon and can carry upto 4000 kg of other
armament externally.
MiG-21 BISON : Single engine, single seater multirole fighter/ground attack

aircraft of Russian origin which forms the back-bone of the IAF. It has a max
speed of 2230 km/hr (Mach 2.1) and carries one 23mm twin barrel cannon
with four R-60 close combat missiles.
Jaguar : A twin-engine, single seater deep penetration strike aircraft of Anglo-

French origin which has a max. speed of 1350 km /hr (Mach 1.3). It has two
30mm guns and can carry two R-350 Magic CCMs (overwing) alongwith 4750
kg of external stores (bombs/fuel). 
A military aircraft is any fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft that is operated by
a legal or insurrectionary armed service of any type.[1] Military aircraft can be
either combat or non-combat:
• Combat aircraft are designed to destroy enemy equipment using their
own aircraft ordnance.[1] Combat aircraft are typically developed and
procured only by military forces.
• Non-combat aircraft are not designed for combat as their primary
function, but may carry weapons for self-defense. These mainly operate
in support roles, and may be developed by either military forces or
civilian organizations.
Contents ReferencesHistory[edit]
A replica of a German Heinkel He 178, the world's first aircraft to fly under turbojet
power, at Rostock-Laage Airport.
This section needs expansion.
You can help by adding to it. (July 2017)
Balloons[edit]
In 1783, when the first practical aircraft (hot-air and hydrogen balloons) were
established, they were quickly adopted for military duties.[2] The first military
balloon unit was the French Aerostatic Corps, who in 1794 flew an
observation balloon during the Battle of Fleurus, the first major battle to
feature aerial observation.[3] Balloons continued to be used throughout the
19th Century, including in the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian war,
for observation and propaganda distribution.[4] During the First World War,
German Zeppelin airships carried out multiple air raids on British cities, as
well as being used for observation.[4] In the 1920s, the US Navy acquired
several non-rigid airships, the first one to see service being the K-1 in 1931.
Use by the USA as well as other countries continued into the Second World
War, the US Navy finally retiring its last balloons in 1962.[5]
Powered aircraft[edit]
Soon after the first flight of the Wright Flyer, several militaries became
interested in powered aircraft. In 1909 the US Army purchased the Wright
Military Flyer, a two-seat observation aircraft, for the Aeronautical Division,
U.S. Signal Corps. It served until 1911, by which time powered aircraft had
become an important feature in several armies around the world.[6]
Combat aircraft[edit]
You can help by adding to it. (October
2012)
Combat aircraft, or "Warplanes", are divided broadly into multi-role, fighters,
bombers, attackers, and electronic warfare support.
Variations exist between them, including fighter-bombers, such as the MiG-23
ground-attack aircraft and the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik. Also included
among combat aircraft are long-range maritime patrol aircraft, such as the
Hawker Siddeley Nimrod and the S-3 Viking that are often equipped to attack
with anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine weapons.
Fighter aircraft[edit]
A Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-57.

Main articles: Fighter aircraft, Air superiority fighter, Interceptor aircraft,
Fighter-bomber, and Strike fighter
The primary role of fighters is destroying enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat,
as part of both offensive and defensive counter air operations. Many fighters
also possess a degree of ground attack capability, allowing them to perform
surface attack and close air support missions. In addition to their counter air
duties they are tasked to perform escort mission for bombers or other aircraft.
Fighters are capable of carrying a variety of weapons, including machine
guns, cannons, rockets, guided missiles, and bombs. Many modern fighters
can attack enemy fighters from a great distance, before the enemy even sees
or detects them. Examples of fighters include the F-22 Raptor, F-15 Eagle,
and Su-27.
Bomber aircraft[edit]
A USAF B-2A Spirit
Main articles: Bomber, Strategic bomber, Heavy bomber, Medium bomber,
and Interdictor
Bombers are normally larger, heavier, and less maneuverable than fighter
aircraft. They are capable of carrying large payloads of bombs, torpedoes or
cruise missiles. Bombers are used almost exclusively for ground attacks and
not fast or agile enough to take on enemy fighters head-to-head. A few have a
single engine and require one pilot to operate and others have two or more
engines and require crews of two or more. A limited number of bombers, such
as the B-2 Spirit, have stealth capabilities that keep them from being detected
by enemy radar. An example of a conventional modern bomber would be the
B-52 Stratofortress. An example of a World War II bomber would be a B-17
Flying Fortress. Bombers include light bombers, medium bombers, heavy
bombers, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers.
Attack aircraft[edit]
Two Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucanos of the Brazilian Air Force fly over the Amazon
rainforest.
Main articles: Attack aircraft and Gunship
Attack aircraft can be used to provide support for friendly ground troops.
Some are able to carry conventional or nuclear weapons far behind enemy
lines to strike priority ground targets. Attack helicopters attack enemy armor
and provide close air support for ground troops. An example historical
ground-attack aircraft is the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik. Several types of
transport airplanes have been armed with sideways firing weapons as
gunships for ground attack. These include the AC-47 and AC-130 aircraft.
Electronic warfare aircraft[edit]
A USAF EF-111A Raven

Main article: Electronic-warfare aircraft
An electronic warfare aircraft is a military aircraft equipped for electronic
warfare (EW) - i.e. degrading the effectiveness of enemy radar and radio
systems. They are generally modified versions of other pre-existing aircraft. A
recent example would be the Boeing EA-18G Growler, which is a modified
version of the Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet.[7]
Maritime patrol aircraft[edit]
A Portuguese Air Force EADS CASA C-295 MPA/Persuader used for maritime patrol
and anti-submarine warfare.
Main article: Maritime patrol aircraft
A maritime patrol aircraft fixed-wing military aircraft designed to operate for
long durations over water in maritime patrol roles—in particular anti-
submarine, anti-ship and search and rescue. Some patrol aircraft were
designed for this purpose, like the Kawasaki P-1.[8] Many others are modified
designs of pre-existing aircraft, such as the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, which is
based on the Boeing 737-800 airliner.[9]
Multirole combat aircraft[edit]
A People's Liberation Army Air Force Shenyang J-15.

Main articles: Multirole combat aircraft, Fighter-bomber, and Strike fighter
Many combat aircraft today have a multirole ability. Normally only applying to
fixed-wing aircraft, this term signifies that the plane in question can be a
fighter or a bomber, depending on what the mission calls for. An example of a
multirole design is the F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, F-35 Lightning II. A
World War II example would be the P-38 Lightning.[10]
Non-combat aircraft[edit]
An Italian Air Force Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master used to deliver pilot training for the
latest generation of combat fighter aircraft.
You can help by adding to it. (October
2012)
Non-combat roles of military aircraft include search and rescue,
reconnaissance, observation/surveillance, Airborne Early Warning and
Control, transport, training, and aerial refueling.
Many civil aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary wing, have been produced in
separate models for military use, such as the civilian Douglas DC-3 airliner,
which became the military C-47 Skytrain, and British "Dakota" transport
planes, and decades later, the USAF's AC-47 aerial gunships. Even the
fabric-covered two-seat Piper J3 Cub had a military version. Gliders and
balloons have also been used as military aircraft; for example, balloons were
used for observation during the American Civil War and during World War I,
and military gliders were used during World War II to deliver ground troops in
airborne assaults.
Military transport aircraft[edit]
An Airbus A400M Atlas of the German Luftwaffe.

Main article: Military transport aircraft
Military transport (logistics) aircraft are primarily used to transport troops and
war supplies. Cargo can be attached to pallets, which are easily loaded,
secured for flight, and quickly unloaded for delivery. Cargo also may be
discharged from flying aircraft on parachutes, eliminating the need for
landing. Also included in this category are aerial tankers; these planes can
refuel other aircraft while in flight. An example of a transport aircraft is the
C-17 Globemaster III. A World War II example would be the C-47. An example
of a tanker craft would be the KC-135 Stratotanker. Helicopters and gliders
can transport troops and supplies to areas where other aircraft would be
unable to land.
Calling a military aircraft a "cargo plane" is incorrect, because military
transport planes also carry paratroopers and other soldiers.
Airborne early warning and control[edit]
A Saab 340 AEW&C in flight at the Swedish Armed Forces' Airshow 2010.
Main article: Airborne early warning and control
An airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system is an airborne radar
system designed to detect aircraft, ships and ground vehicles at long ranges
and control and command the battle space in an air engagement by directing
fighter and attack aircraft strikes. AEW&C units are also used to carry out
surveillance, including over ground targets and frequently perform C2BM
(command and control, battle management) functions similar to an Airport
Traffic Controller given military command over other forces. Used at a high
altitude, the radars on the aircraft allow the operators to distinguish between
friendly and hostile aircraft hundreds of miles away.
An Indian Air Force Beriev A-50EI Mainstay

AEW&C aircraft are used for both defensive and offensive air operations, and
are to the NATO and USA forces trained or integrated Air Forces what the
Command Information Center is to a Navy Warship, plus a highly mobile and
powerful radar platform. The system is used offensively to direct fighters to
their target locations, and defensively in order to counterattacks by enemy
forces, both air and ground. So useful is the advantage of command and
control from a high altitude, the United States Navy operates AEW&C aircraft
off its Supercarriers to augment and protect its carrier Command Information
Centers (CICs).
AEW&C is also known by the older terms "airborne early warning" (AEW) and
"airborne warning and control system" (AWACS, /ˈeɪwæks/ ay-waks) although
AWACS is the name of a specific system currently used by NATO and the
USAF and is often used in error to describe similar systems.
Reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft[edit]
A Thales Watchkeeper WK450 of the RAF.
Main articles: Reconnaissance aircraft and Surveillance aircraft
Reconnaissance aircraft are primarily used to gather intelligence. They are
equipped with cameras and other sensors. These aircraft may be specially
designed or may be modified from a basic fighter or bomber type. This role is
increasingly being filled by satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Surveillance and observation aircraft use radar and other sensors for
battlefield surveillance, airspace surveillance, maritime patrol and artillery
spotting. They include modified civil aircraft designs, moored balloons and
UAVs.
Experimental aircraft[edit]
Main article: Experimental aircraft
Experimental aircraft are designed in order to test advanced aerodynamic,
structural, avionic, or propulsion concepts. These are usually well
instrumented, with performance data telemetered on radio-frequency data
links to ground stations located at the test ranges where they are flown. An
example of an experimental aircraft is the Bristol 188.
PREPARING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

TECHNOLOGY AND THE NATION'S FUTURE
National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
Background
Since Abraham Lincoln approved the Congressional charter of the
National Academy of Sciences in 1863, the Academy complex—now
made up of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy
of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research
Council—has been advising government about the impact of science
and technology on society. The Academy complex provides
independent advice to government by appointing committees of experts
who serve without compensation, asking these committees to prepare
draft reports by consensus, and subjecting these drafts to rigorous
independent scientific review before release to ensure their quality and
integrity. To avoid potential conflict of interest and bias, careful
attention is given to the composition and balance of study committees.
As the 21st century approaches with science and technology assuming
increasing importance in society, the Governing Board of the National
Research Council has synthesized, summarized, and highlighted
principal conclusions and recommendations from recent reports to
inform decisions in a number of key policy matters. The resulting series
of papers do not address all the intersections of science and technology
with public policy, but they do address some of the most important.
They are directed to federal administrators, members of Congress,
university administrators, leaders of nongovernmental organizations,
and all others involved in the development and implementation of
public policies involving science and technology.
This paper focuses on government policies regarding technology
development and proposes measures to facilitate the translation of new
knowledge to new capabilities. Another paper in this series, "Science
and Engineering Research in a Changing World," describes policies
that can strengthen linkages between science and engineering research
and national objectives.
Previous reports from the Academy complex have had a major effect on
the technology activities and policies of the federal government. For
example, two 19th-century reports provided advice on restoring the
Declaration of Independence and controlling landslides during the
construction of the Panama Canal. The issues summarized in this paper
from past reports continue to be relevant to the work of the Academy
complex and to the nation.
This document, with direct links to the text of all reports cited herein, is
PREPARING
FOR THE 21st CENTURY
TECHNOLOGY AND THE NATION'S FUTURE
Private firms have the primary responsibility for the development and adoption
of technology in this country, but federal and state governments play an
important role in enhancing civilian technology development and adoption
through their economic, regulatory, and trade policies, their support for
research and development, and their own procurement of technology.
Introduction
As the 20th century draws to a close, the technological landscape is changing. The
United States is now only one of several technologically powerful nations. The end of
the Cold War has heightened the importance of commercial technologies in
maintaining both economic and military security. New technologies depend
increasingly on scientific and engineering knowledge; this interdependence
strengthens the reciprocal links between understanding and capability.
In the United States, technology development and adoption occur through a complex
system that encompasses many individuals and organizations. Researchers in
academic, government, and industrial laboratories create new knowledge on which
many advanced technologies are based. Colleges and universities educate new
generations of scientists and engineers who will put that knowledge to work. Private
companies invest financial and human resources in developing new technologies and
adapting existing technologies to meet perceived needs.
Several key objectives set forth in Academy complex reports can help guide the
development and implementation of public policies related to technology. Among
these objectives are the following:
• Integrate the pursuit of technological, economic, and social objectives by
more explicitly recognizing the effects of public policies on technology
development and adoption.
• Phase out immediately the federal government's conformity-assessment
activities and rely instead on private testing, certification, and
accreditation services that are recognized as competent by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
• Set benchmarks for private investment, net saving, and productivity
growth.
• Move toward a system in which saving and investment are taxed less and
consumption is taxed more, while the progressivity of the tax structure is
retained.
• By means of cooperative efforts between the federal government and the
private sector, ensure that the United States has world-class capabilities in
technologies that promise to have a major and continuing impact on broad
areas of industrial and economic performance.
• Broaden the use of cryptography in ways that take into account competing
US desires for individual privacy, international economic competitiveness,
law enforcement, national security, and world leadership.
• Support experimentation at the federal, state, and local levels with a wide
range of public and private initiatives for increasing the quantity and
quality of school-to-work transition programs and of job-related training
and continuing education for the nation's workforce.
• Extend protection of intellectual property rights internationally to
maintain current incentives for companies to innovate and invest in
research and development.
• Avoid actions that would deny the United States the benefits of foreign
participation in US research and development when addressing specific
concerns related to foreign competition.
• Increase efforts to open foreign markets to US trade and investment
through negotiation in bilateral and multilateral forums.

Knowing Where You Are
When Captain Scott O'Grady parachuted into Bosnia-Herzegovina after
his F-16 fighter was shot down in 1995, he carried in his vest a portable
radio receiver tuned to a network of 24 satellites known as the Global
Positioning System (GPS). While hiding in the woods, O'Grady used
the receiver to determine his position behind enemy lines—longitude,
latitude, and altitude—to within a few tens of meters, and he was able
to signal that information to the Marines who successfully rescued him.
GPS technology originated in the creation of atomic clocks for studying
relativity and Einsteinian physics. It first found use in military
applications, including the Gulf War. GPS technology became
commercially available a few years ago, and since then the range of its
applications has been exploding. Delivery and emergency vehicles now
use GPS to pinpoint destinations and map their routes. Shipping
companies and private boaters use GPS for navigation. Commercial
airlines have saved billions of dollars by honing their flight plans with
GPS. The current worldwide market for GPS receivers and technology
is already estimated at over $2 billion and is expected to grow to over
$30 billion in the next 10 years.
For more information:
The Global Positioning System: A Shared National Asset;
Recommendations for Technical Improvements and Enhancements,
1995
The Global Positioning System, National Academy of Sciences, 1996
A Climate that Promotes Technological

Innovation Should Be Maintained
The most-important role of government in technology development and adoption is
maintaining an environment conducive to private-sector innovation and investment.
Many policies affect that environment, including policies on taxes, trade, investment,
patents, product liability, environmental and consumer protection, international arms
control, and human resources. Those policies have multiple and sometimes
competing aims. By explicitly recognizing the effects of public policies on
technology development and adoption, government could better integrate its
pursuit of technological, economic, and social objectives. (A-1)
The government's economic and regulatory policies have an especially broad
influence on technology development and adoption. For example, government
policies help to determine levels of investment in the economy, which in turn drives
productivity, economic growth, and job creation. Public and private investment in
research and development leads to new products and processes that can spur
productivity, and investment in new facilities and equipment gives companies an
opportunity to incorporate more-productive technologies into their operations.
Private investment is closely related to the level of public and private saving in the
economy, and today the levels of both saving and investment are severely inadequate.
As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), public and private saving has been
below 3% since 1990, compared with norms of 8-10% among other industrial
countries (20% in Japan). Half the saving shortfall in this country is a result of the
need to fund the federal budget deficit. The other half results from a low and
declining rate of private saving by households and companies. The resulting low level
of investment will not sustain a growth in productivity sufficient to meet Americans'
legitimate expectations for an improving standard of living.
Standards and Conformity Assessment
As an example of how government policies can have both beneficial
and harmful effects on technology development and adoption, consider
today's policies governing standards and conformity assessment—the
testing and certifying of products and processes for their conformity to
standards. A wide range of federal, state, and local government
agencies are involved in developing standards for products, processes,
services, interfaces, and materials and in assessing conformity to
standards. Unnecessary duplication and complexity among government
policies—especially in conformity assessment—have led to increasing
costs and burdens for manufacturers, procurement agencies, testing
laboratories, product certifiers, and consumers.
Government agencies should increase their use of private-sector
consensus standards for both regulatory and procurement purposes and
cooperate more effectively with private-sector standards developers.
For example, the Department of Defense's experience in procurement
reform indicates that relying on commercial standards instead of
government-unique standards can substantially reduce acquisition
costs. Recent legislation (P.L. 104-113) implemented National
Research Council recommendations to extend and strengthen this
policy throughout the federal government.
In addition, conformity assessment is performed most efficiently and
effectively by the private sector. To simplify the system and lower
costs, the federal government should immediately begin to phase
out its conformity-assessment activities and to rely instead on
private testing, certification, and accreditation services that are
recognized as competent by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). NIST also should work with state and local
governments to eliminate duplication at those levels.
Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Trade: Into the 21st Century,
International Standards, Conformity Assessment, and US Trade Policy
Project Committee, 1995
To address the saving shortfall, the administration and Congress should set
benchmarks for private investment, net saving, and productivity growth. (A-2)
Moving toward saving and investment rates of 8-10% of GDP over a 3-10 year period
would contribute measurably to enhancing productivity and economic growth in the
United States. These benchmarks do not need to be achieved immediately, but public
officials need to set goals and develop a public consensus behind them, so that the
actions needed to move toward the goals are not crowded out by short-term pressures.
Structural changes in US tax policy would be the most direct and effective way to
increase investment and saving. While retaining the progressivity of the tax
structure, the United States should move toward a system in which saving and
investment are taxed less and consumption is taxed more. (A-2) Efforts to reduce
the cost of capital in the United States and to emphasize long-term investments also
could boost saving and investment rates.
For more information on government's climate-setting role:
A-1. The Government Role in Civilian Technology: Building a New Alliance, Panel
on the Government Role in Civilian Technology, 1992
A-2. Investing for Productivity and Prosperity, Board on Science, Technology, and
Economic Policy, 1994
Government Support for Commercial Technologies

Should Be Selectively Provided
In some cases, government has a compelling rationale for directly enhancing the
development and adoption of technologies. For example, federal and state agencies
pursue a number of public missions that depend heavily on technological advances,
such as safeguarding public health, ensuring national security, and protecting the
environment. In the past, technologies developed with public funds to meet those
government missions often have had important commercial applications. For
example, federal R&D funding and procurement contributed substantially to the
development of such high-technology products as airframes and aircraft engines, a
wide range of pharmaceuticals and biomedical devices, satellites, semiconductors,
computers, biotechnology, and nuclear power.
In select cases, the government also has a rationale for supporting the development of
commercial technologies beyond those explicitly linked to federal agency missions.
For example, there is a role for government in facilitation of the development of
"path-breaking technologies"—those with the potential to create major new industries
or transform existing industries and thereby yield high returns to society as a whole
but whose development poses risks too high to attract sufficient private-sector
investment. Examples of past and present path-breaking technologies are nuclear
medicine, biotechnology, semiconductors, aircraft engines, and communication
satellites. Similarly, government has a role in facilitating the development of
"infrastructural technologies"—those that enhance the performance of a broad
spectrum of firms in the near to intermediate term but do not offer sufficient private
returns. Examples of these technologies are the development of engineering methods,
compilation and validation of technical data, measurement tools, and the refinement
of manufacturing processes.
Identifying technologies that meet those criteria is difficult and requires a combined
public-private effort. The federal government should work with the private sector
to ensure that the United States has world-class capabilities in technologies that
promise to have a major and continuing impact on broad areas of industrial and
economic performance. (B-1) But the government need not invest in fields in
which the private sector already has programs of development in place. (B-2)
The concept of a government role in subsidizing the development of commercial
technologies is controversial. Firms motivated by market forces and judged by their
performance in satisfying demand have a better record than governments of investing
in new technologies with large commercial payoffs. Insulated from market forces and
critical evaluation, government support for commercial technologies risks being
influenced more by political than by economic considerations. (B-3)
To sustain public support for technology development, government needs to develop
criteria and mechanisms for evaluation, feedback, and institutional learning so that
successes and failures can be identified and better understood. Government must be
prepared to discard programs that do not work and reallocate resources to programs
that do. Government R&D efforts also should avoid competition with commercial
firms; government can then work more effectively with market forces and the private
sector to leverage national strengths in science and technology to the enhancement of
US productivity and economic growth. (B-2)
For more information on government support of commercial technologies:
B-1. Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New
Era, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 1993
B-2. Mastering a New Role: Shaping Technology Policy for National Economic
Performance, Committee on Technology Policy Options in a Global Economy, 1993
B-3. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, Committee on Criteria
for Federal Support for Research and Development, 1995
Public and Private Responsibilities Should Be

Synergistic in Civilian Technology Fields
The Academy complex has not conducted a comparative analysis of public- and
private-sector responsibilities in civilian technology. But it has analyzed the roles of
private and public organizations in several technological fields. These analyses point
toward a number of ways in which government can play a constructive role in
technology development and dissemination.
Information Technologies
A notable example involves information technologies. Over the last 5 decades,
information technologies have grown to a $500 billion industry, and the personal
computer has become a defining symbol of our age. In 1945, it was not known that
computers would become a revolutionary device that would profoundly affect
industry, commerce, the financial world, government, science, education,
communications, entertainment, and society as a whole. Today, information
technology and its applications continue to advance steadily. Computers and
communication technology will become even more valuable to society as they are
increasingly able to recognize and simulate speech, build huge automated libraries,
control robots, and even create virtual worlds where people can learn, work, shop,
and be entertained.
The federal government has supported the development of information technologies
in a number of ways. In the early days of the industry, government procurement,
especially for defense and space applications, was a powerful influence on
technological advances. Government also has funded a broad spectrum of research
and development, from basic computer science to the development of prototype
technologies, including the advanced networks that evolved into the Internet. Today,
it is continuing to invest in a variety of new ideas and approaches. For example, the
federal government supported the development of the Mosaic browser for the World
Wide Web, which has led to the development of several commercial products that
have greatly increased access to resources on the Internet.
The private sector will remain the principal source of research and development in
information technology. But to ensure continued US leadership in information
technology, the federal government needs to maintain strong support for a
broadly based program of research. (C-1) Although sometimes the benefits from
publicly supported research programs in information technology have been of
unexpected types, the record of accomplishments suggests that government
investment in computing and communications research has been very productive and
has yielded high social returns despite the high risk involved.
It is important to maintain the information infrastructure. The competitive drive of
private industry will dominate the process by which the National Information
Infrastructure (NII) evolves. Private firms will build it; their business plans must
justify the investments; and competition and the desire for new markets, not a pursuit
of abstract visions or societal goals, will define and shape it. That reality provides the
impetus that will make the NII happen; at the same time, it triggers many fears and
concerns. In this context, opinions differ considerably on whether there is an
appropriate government role in advancing the NII and, if so, what it is.
Most people can agree that an ideal information infrastructure would have such
qualities as extended interoperability, broad accessibility, and support for broad
participation. It would also allow multiple channels for many-to-many
communications and information-sharing, as well as one-to-one communications
(familiar today through telephony) and one-to-many communications (familiar
through broadcast and cable television). Progress toward that ideal is more likely if
the government can set an example with its own services and help to promote a
consensus on a vision of the future by removing barriers to its realization. (C-2)
Other Government Roles in the Development
of Information Technologies
Government also has a major influence on information technologies in
its roles as customer, publisher, regulator, arbiter, conveyer of public
interests, and leader in the interest of equity and a productive society.
For example, although most communications standards are developed
in the private sector, government is an essential partner.
New forms of communication—such as teleconferencing and electronic
mail, publications, and bulletin boards—raise tough questions. For
example, who is liable when someone posts a defamatory message,
pornography, or copyrighted material on a publicly accessible
electronic bulletin board? What is the role of regulation and law versus
that of ethics, informal norms of community behavior, and the
marketplace? Government will be a key player in building on existing
traditions and rules to accommodate new media and new forms of
human expression.
Cryptography is one important tool for protecting information that is
very difficult for governments to control. Cryptography supports the
confidentiality and integrity of digitally represented information (such
as computer data, software, and video) and the authentication of
individuals and computer systems communicating with other computer
systems; these capabilities are important in varied degrees for
protecting the information-security interests of many different private
and public stakeholders, including law enforcement and national
security. Furthermore, cryptography can help to support law-
enforcement objectives in preventing information crimes, such as
economic espionage.
Current national cryptography policy is not adequate to support the
information-security requirements of an information society. US
national policy should be changed to support the broad use of
cryptography in ways that take into account competing US needs
and desires for individual privacy, international economic
competitiveness, law enforcement, national security, and world
leadership.
The framework for national cryptography policy should provide
coherent structure and reduce uncertainty for potential vendors and
nongovernment and government users of cryptography in ways that it
does not today. For example, no law should bar the manufacture, sale,
Rapid progress toward a harmonious national environment of interrelated information
services and capabilities would be valuable to the nation. A rational set of public and
private services is unlikely to emerge from the action of market forces alone.
However, the proper role for the government is to be a partner and participant with
the private sector and to exercise its regulatory authority with restraint.
Aeronautical Technologies
Another industrial enterprise in which government support for basic research and
technology development has contributed substantially to US industrial leadership is
aeronautics. In recent years, foreign aircraft manufacturers have made inroads into
the global aircraft market, to the detriment of US interests. Foreign governments, in
close relationships with their aircraft industries, have invested heavily in the basic
aeronautics research and technology that is necessary for developing and maintaining
a competitive posture, meeting future constraints on air-traffic management, and
reducing the environmental impact of aircraft.
Technology alone does not ensure economic success in the aircraft industry; but
without competitive technology, US manufacturers will fail economically. The
federal government needs to work with commercial interests and universities to
define the aeronautics technologies with the greatest potential payoff and work
in a concerted fashion toward their development. (C-3) Government cannot
adequately address the needs of industry unless industry is involved from the
beginning. By the same token, cooperative programs can be structured so as not to
jeopardize the autonomy of basic research or the constraints of fair trade.
Biomedical Technologies
New biomedical technologies often derive from the combined efforts of the public
and private sectors. Academic, government, and industrial laboratories are all
involved in the development of many new technologies, and ideas and people flow
quickly among all three types of institutions. Efforts to control cost and regulate
health care should be designed to encourage continued technological discovery and
experimentation.
Industrial Systems
How services are provided and goods are produced, delivered, used, and disposed of
affect the environment. An ecology of industry that is characterized by entire systems
of production and consumption is a concept that can be used to enhance
environmental quality. Advances in technology, applied usually by private firms,
present the primary opportunities for improvement within these integrated systems.
There are also opportunities for societies to become less resource-dependent and to
develop and deploy environmentally safer materials, processes, and systems using
technologies that are more environmentally sensitive. Corporate decisions and the
personal choices of consumers are important determinants of environmental quality.
Policymakers need to formulate effective economic incentives to foster a systems
approach to improving environmental quality. (C-5) In particular, they need to
reduce liability barriers and regulatory barriers and develop ways of providing
consumers with credible information about environmental impacts via such
actions as marketing and labeling. (C-6, C-7)
Transportation Infrastructure
The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a cooperative R&D
program between the federal government and the US Council for Automotive
Research, has the goal of developing technologies for a new generation of vehicles
that could achieve fuel mileage up to three times that of comparable 1994 family
sedans. At the same time, the new vehicles should maintain performance, size, utility,
and ownership and operating costs and should meet and exceed federal safety and
emissions requirements. The intent of the program is to develop production prototype
vehicles by 2004. The PNGV program also aims to improve national competitiveness
in manufacturing substantially and to implement commercially sustainable innovation
of conventional vehicles.
The United States enjoys the world's most-effective and most-extensive road
transportation system. Over 175 million passenger cars and light trucks travel more
than 2 billion miles a year on 3.9 million miles of public roads. Some extremely
attractive technologies under consideration for the PNGV have the potential to
introduce large changes in the demands on the infrastructure, which will result in
requirements for new capital, labor, and natural resources. The extent of these
changes will vary widely, depending on body and structural materials, power plants,
and energy-storage systems.
The PNGV must continue to address infrastructure issues as an integral part of
its program. A careful assessment of infrastructure issues associated with
alternative technologies should be an essential part of the technology-selection
process. (C-8)
Geographic Data Collection, Use,

and Distribution
As a final example of the government's varied roles in technology development,
consider the collection and use of the geographic information that describes the
arrangement and attributes of features and phenomena on the earth—known as spatial
data. Many federal, state, and local agencies and private organizations generate and
use such data for many purposes, including agriculture, land-use planning, and
environmental management. An entity called the National Spatial Data Infrastructure
acquires, processes, stores, and distributes the information. Data-sharing can
minimize duplication, reduce long-term costs, and streamline analysis and decision-
making. The public and private sectors should work together to integrate the
collection, use, and distribution of spatial data into the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure. (C-9) An integrated system would eliminate much of the overlap and
duplication that occur today, while creating many new opportunities for the use of
spatial information.
For more information on the role of government in the development of the above
technologies:
C-1.Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to
Support the Nation's Information Infrastructure, Committee to Study High
Performance Computing and Communications: Status of a Major Initiative, 1995
C-2. The Unpredictable Certainty: Information Infrastructure Through 2000, NII
2000 Steering Committee, 1996
C-3. Aeronautical Technologies for the Twenty-First Century, Committee on
Aeronautical Technologies, 1992
C-4. Technology and Health Care in an Era of Limits, Committee on Technological
Innovation in Medicine, 1992
C-5. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals, Committee
on the National Forum on Science and Technology Goals: Environment, 1996
C-6. The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems, National Academy of Engineering, 1995
C-7. The Industrial Green Game, National Academy of Engineering, 1995
C-8. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles: Second Report, Standing Committee to Review the Research Program of
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, 1996
C-9. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation, Mapping
Science Committee, 1993
Gaps in Workforce Training and Continuing

Education Should Be Eliminated
The skills, capacity for continuous learning, and effective management of a nation's
workforce largely determine the nation's ability to attract and retain high-value-
added, high-skill industries and its ability to absorb and exploit new technology for
economic benefit. US producers of goods and services must adopt more-productive
approaches to the organization of work and the management and motivation of their
workforce if they expect to cultivate and take advantage of their employees' skills,
ingenuity, and creativity.
The United States has one of the largest, most-diversified, but poorly coordinated
training enterprises in the world. In the United States, work-related training and
continuing education are provided by a broad spectrum of private and public
institutions, including 2-year colleges and technical institutions, noncollegiate
postsecondary vocational schools, 4-year colleges and universities, apprenticeship
programs, professional associations, unions, vendors, and employers. Across this vast
and diverse training enterprise, there are few common standards, the quality of
training is uneven, and important subsets of the nation's current and potential
workforce are poorly served, particularly with regard to job-related training and
continuing education within industry.
The United States should foster the timely adoption and effective use of
commercially valuable technology throughout the economy by supporting
experimentation at the federal, state, and local levels with a wide range of public
and private initiatives for increasing the quantity and quality of school-to-work
transition programs and of job-related training and continuing education for the
nation's workforce. (D-1)
For more information on gaps in workforce training and continuing education:
D-1. Mastering a New Role: Shaping Technology Policy for National Economic
Performance, Committee on Technology Policy Options in a Global Economy, 1993
The International Context of Innovating and

Investing in R&D Needs Greater Attention
Policies that influence the development and adoption of technologies must reflect two
mutually reinforcing trends that build global networks of R&D, production, and
marketing: (1) expanding international trade, foreign direct investment, and corporate
alliances, and (2) converging technological capabilities of the industrialized nations.
Economic and technical interdependence among nations is growing, and this
increasing interdependence is creating both opportunities and challenges for the
private and public sectors. It opens doors to new markets, new technologies, and new
sources of competition, which spur the creativity and productivity of US companies
and workers. Many of the fastest-growing markets are now in other countries, and
increasing openness in trade gives companies opportunities to compete in those
markets. International interdependence also helps to disseminate new technologies
and management practices. All those factors can contribute to productivity increases,
wealth generation, employment growth, and higher standards of living in the United
States.
At the same time, deepening interdependence has accelerated the pace of structural
and organizational change within the US economy and has increased demands on
individuals, organizations, and communities to adapt to changing circumstances.
Those able to respond to demands can reap significant benefits, but those unable to
adapt quickly and effectively can suffer severe economic hardships. The loss of
control over national markets that is associated with international interdependence
also can greatly complicate the task of advancing national interests—economic,
political, and military. In addition, shifts in the balance of economic and
technological strength among nations can raise concerns about access to markets and
technological assets. High-technology products and their development require
particular attention in light of their importance to the national economy and because
these industries are the target of industrial policies of many participants in the
multilateral trading system.
A particular challenge that has been intensified by international interdependence
involves the protection of intellectual property. Today, the competitiveness of many
firms is determined by their ability to develop, commercialize, and, most important,
capture the economic benefits of innovations. Intellectual-property rights, such as
patent rights and copyrights, allow firms to protect their investments in innovation
and R&D. But with innovations traveling so quickly around the globe, protection of
intellectual-property rights needs to extend internationally to maintain current
incentives for companies to innovate and invest in R&D. (E-1, E-2)
Growing international interdependence is not without its costs, but on balance this
trend is a positive force both for the United States and for the rest of the world.
Furthermore, it cannot be reversed or slowed substantially without unacceptable cost
to the American people and the rest of the world. The critical question is how to
respond to the trend more effectively so that we can maximize the associated benefits,
reduce the associated costs, and find ways to distribute both the benefits and costs of
globalization more equitably at home.
A case in point is the growing involvement of foreign companies, researchers, and
students in US R&D. Through transnational alliances and direct investment in US
companies, foreign firms are increasingly engaged in the US industrial R&D base.
Similarly, foreign students, researchers, and firms are becoming more and more
involved in publicly funded R&D performed in US research universities and federal
laboratories.
Some policymakers and business leaders, noting the extent to which foreign
researchers and companies draw upon the US R&D enterprise, have expressed
concern about the transfer of technologies developed in the United States to other
countries and about a corresponding loss of opportunities to US citizens. The concern
is intensified when the technologies have potential national-security implications or
when the foreign entities involved originate in countries that deny US citizens
reciprocal access to domestic markets and R&D assets.
At the same time, it is clear that the United States derives substantial benefits from
the involvement of foreign nationals in the country's research enterprise, as do foreign
countries from the R&D activities of US firms. Each needs to work in the other's
markets to be successful in their home markets. For example, foreign science and
engineering talent in the nation's research universities, federal laboratories, and
industrial R&D enterprise contributes substantially to our nation's technological and
economic strength. The US affiliates of foreign-owned firms bring large amounts of
technology and know-how into our country and employ over 100,000 Americans in
US-based R&D. Given the magnitude of those benefits and the rapid growth of
foreign technological capabilities in recent decades, US policymakers, in their
attempts to address specific concerns related to foreign competition, should
avoid actions that would deny the United States the benefits of foreign
participation in US R&D. (E-3, E-4) Public policymakers should avoid restricting,
whenever possible, transnational cooperative efforts among firms, provided that
sufficient competition is preserved.
Interdependence in Commercial Aircraft
The commercial aircraft industry demonstrates both the risks and the
rewards of the globalization of R&D, production, investment, markets,
and technology. For more than 50 years, US leadership in aircraft
manufacturing and aviation has been a major component of our
economic strength and national security. But today, as markets, capital,
and technologies are increasingly global, international alliances and
other cross-border linkages are increasingly common. In particular, the
importance of companies based outside the United States—including
those in Europe and Japan—is already substantial and growing rapidly.
For example, the growing strength of Japanese companies, particularly
in the supply of aircraft components and equipment, constitutes one
long-term challenge to US preeminence in transport aircraft. Yet US
companies and the federal government have more to gain from
promoting a balanced flow of technology between the two countries
than they do from retreating into a defensive stance.
A private-sector effort, the National Aviation Advisory Committee
(NAAC), composed of knowledgeable leaders from industry,
academe, and elsewhere should be established to develop a shared
vision for maintaining US leadership. The NAAC would provide
input to government in identifying critical aerospace technologies,
assessing international technology transfers, and improving civil-
military integration in aircraft-technology development and
manufacturing.
High-Stakes Aviation: U.S.-Japan Technology Linkages in Transport
Aircraft, Committee on Japan, 1994
There is a productive tension between the ideal of growing international
interdependence and openness and the current unresolved issues in high-technology
competition. The preferred approach is to arrive at mutually beneficial "rules of the
game" for transnational corporations and their home and host countries. The rules
cover a wide variety of policies, including antitrust restrictions, government
procurement, intellectual-property rights, industrial targeting and subsidy practices,
foreign direct investment, local content, and international standard-setting. While
continuing to address unresolved issues, the federal government should further
efforts to open foreign markets to US trade and investment through negotiation
in bilateral and multilateral forums. (E-2, E-4)
The ability of the United States to capture the benefits of the global technical
enterprise will depend primarily on the success with which private corporations
operating within US borders seize the opportunities presented by the emerging global
technology base. Policymakers can influence this success by recognizing the
interdependence of domestic and international policies that affect technology
development and adoption.
For more information on technology and trade:
E-1. Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology,
Office of International Affairs, 1993
E-2. Conflict and Cooperation in National Competition for High-Technology
Industry, Steering Committee on Sources of Friction and Cooperation in High
Technology Industries, 1996
E-3. National Interests in an Age of Global Technology, Committee on Engineering as
an International Enterprise, 1991
E-4. Foreign Participation in U.S. Research and Development: Asset or Liability?,
Committee on Foreign Participation in U.S. Research and Development, 1996
Continued Vigilance on US Technological

Competitiveness Is Warranted
The widespread perception of the middle to late 1980s that many American
companies were less effective than their foreign competitors at harnessing the output
of R&D is giving way to a more-optimistic view. Through their collective efforts, US
companies are now more effective in responding to foreign competition. Overall, the
US economy remains the most productive and competitive in the world. In many
technological fields, the public and private sectors have worked together effectively
to combine their contrasting capabilities.
Continued cooperation between the public and private sectors will be essential to
meeting the objectives of both industry and the public at large. New technologies and
new concerns will continue to emerge. Balancing the benefits and the risks of change
will require communication, planning, and collaboration between government and
business.
For Further Information:
The World Wide Web site http://www2.nas.edu/21st includes up-to-
date versions of all the documents in this series and on-line versions of
the reports referred to in this document.
Internet Address: jjensen@nas.edu 
Phone: (202) 334-1601
Fax: (202) 334-2419
Address:
National Research Council
Office of Congressional and Government Affairs
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
© 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. This document
may be reproduced solely for individual, non-commercial, and educational purposes
without the written permission of the National Academy of Sciences. 
4. 
5.
The Dassault Rafale (French pronunciation: [ʁafal], literally meaning "gust of wind",[11] and "burst of fire" in
a more military sense)[12] is a French twin-engine, canard delta wing, multirole fighter aircraft designed
and built by Dassault Aviation. Equipped with a wide range of weapons, the Rafale is intended to
perform air supremacy, interdiction, aerial reconnaissance, ground support, in-depth strike, anti-ship
strike and nuclear deterrence missions. The Rafale is referred to as an "omnirole" aircraft by Dassault.
In the late 1970s, the French Air Force and Navy were seeking to replace and consolidate their current
fleets of aircraft. In order to reduce development costs and boost prospective sales, France entered into
an arrangement with UK, Germany, Italy and Spain to produce an agile multi-purpose fighter,
the Eurofighter Typhoon. Subsequent disagreements over workshare and differing requirements led to
France's pursuit of its own development programme. Dassault built a technology demonstrator which
first flew in July 1986 as part of an eight-year flight-test programme, paving the way for the go-ahead of
the project. The Rafale is distinct from other European fighters of its era in that it is almost entirely built
by one country, involving most of France's major defence contractors, such as
Dassault, Thales and Safran.
Many of the aircraft's avionics and features, such as direct voice input, the RBE2 AA active
electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and the optronique secteur frontal infra-red search and
track (IRST) sensor, were domestically developed and produced for the Rafale programme. Originally
scheduled to enter service in 1996, the Rafale suffered significant delays due to post-Cold War budget
cuts and changes in priorities. The aircraft is available in three main variants: Rafale C single-seat land-
based version, Rafale B twin-seat land-based version, and Rafale M single-seat carrier-based version.
Introduced in 2001, the Rafale is being produced for both the French Air Force and for carrier-
based operations in the French Navy. The Rafale has been marketed for export to several countries,
and was selected for purchase by the Indian Air Force, the Egyptian Air Force, and the Qatar Air Force.
The Rafale has been used in combat over Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Iraq and Syria. Several upgrades to
the weapons and avionics of the Rafale are planned to be introduced by 2018.[13]
Over the last decades, air forces have always been the first military component engaged in
all crises or conflicts, from the Falklands to the Gulf, from Bosnia to Kosovo, from
Afghanistan to Libya, and more recently Mali, the Central African Republic, Iraq and Syria.
Military aviation is undoubtedly the most strategic weapon today, both in terms of combat
effectiveness and of critical technologies implemented.
In modern warfare, air dominance from day one is a must, so that air-to-ground and air-to-
sea operations can be conducted safely and efficiently.
In the course of asymmetrical and counter-insurgency conflicts, the air arm also remains at
the forefront of the military effort, its flexibility and firing power helping ensure that allied
forces prevail.
The September 11 events have shown that, in peacetime, it is essential to secure the
national airspace with easily deployable control and air defense assets.
The decisive place of the air component in modern warfare is demonstrated by the
defense strategies decided by those nations who want to keep a leading role on the world
stage.
© A. Jeuland French Air Force
French Air Force Rafale in operations (Opération Harmattan) – Fitted with 6 AASM and
MICA missiles.
The Rafale, with its “Omnirole” capabilities, is the right answer to the capability approach
selected by an increasing number of governments.
It fully complies with the requirement to carry out the widest range of roles with the
smallest number of aircraft.
The Rafale participates in permanent “Quick Reaction Alert” (QRA) / air-defense / air
sovereignty missions, power projection and deployments for external missions, deep strike
missions, air support for ground forces, reconnaissance missions, pilot training sorties and
nuclear deterrence duties.
The Air Force single-seat Rafale C, the Air Force two-seat Rafale B, and the Navy single-
seat Rafale M feature maximum airframe and equipment commonality, and very similar
mission capabilities.
© Dassault Aviation – V. Almansa
Rafale Solo Display
Lessons learned from the latest conflicts where air power was used, can be summarized
into four overarching expectations about weapon systems by political decision makers:
( Versatility, that is the capability, with the same system, to perform different
missions,
( Interoperability, or the ability to fight in coalition with the allies, using common
procedures and standards agreements, and collaborating and communicating in
real-time with other systems,
( Flexibility, which can be illustrated by the ability to conduct several different
missions in the course of the same sortie (“Omnirole“capability). With this capability,
it is possible to switch instantly on the demand of a political decision maker, from a
coercion mission (“strike force”) to a preventive mission (a dissuasive low-altitude,
high-speed “show of force”), or even to cancel a mission until the last second
(reversibility),
( Survivability, that is the capability to survive in a dense threat environment thanks
to stealthiness and / or to advanced electronic warfare systems.
© Defence/French Navy
Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. Rafale M.
The “Omnirole” Rafale combines all these advantages: it is relevant against both traditional
and asymmetrical threats, it addresses the emerging needs of the armed forces in a
changing geopolitical context, and it remains at the forefront of technical innovation.
Thanks to its versatility, its adaptability and its ability to meet all air mission requirements,
the Rafale is the “poster child” transformational fighter which provides a way forward to air
forces confronted to the requirement of doing “more” with “less”, in an ever-changing
strategic and economic environment.
Of a moderate size, yet extremely powerful, superbly agile and very discrete, the latest
type of combat aircraft from Dassault Aviation does not only integrate the largest and most
modern range of sensors, it also multiplies their efficiency with a technological
breakthrough, the “multi-sensor data fusion”.
General characteristics
• Crew: 1–2
• Length: 15.27 m (50.1 ft)
• Wingspan: 10.80 m (35.4 ft)
• Height: 5.34 m (17.5 ft)
• Wing area: 45.7 m2 (492 ft2)
• Empty weight:
• 10,300 kilograms (22,700 lb) (B)[73][287]
• 9,850 kilograms (21,720 lb) (C)[73][287]
• 10,600 kilograms (23,400 lb) (M)[73][287] ()
• Loaded weight: 15,000 kilograms (33,000 lb) ()
• Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 kilograms (54,000 lb) (B/C/D)
• Fuel capacity: 4,700 kg (10,400 lb) internal for single-seater (C);
4,400 kg (9,700 lb) for two-seater (B)
• Powerplant: 2 × Snecma M88-2 turbofans
◦ Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
◦ Thrust with afterburner: 75 kN (16,860 lbf[291]) each
Performance
• Maximum speed:
◦ High altitude: Mach 1.8 (1,912 km/h; 1,032 knots)
◦ Low altitude: Mach 1.1 (1,390 km/h; 750 knots)
• Range: >3,700 km (>2,000 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
• Combat radius: >1,852 km (>1,000 nmi) on penetration mission with
two CFTs (2,300 L), three tanks (5,700 L), two SCALP-EG and two
MICA AAMs.
• Service ceiling: 15,235 m (50,000 ft)
• Rate of climb: >304.8 m/s (>60,000 ft/min)
• Wing loading: 328 kg/m2 (67.1 lb/ft2)
• Thrust/weight: 0.988 (100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile)
version B
• Maximum g-load: +9/−3.6g (+11g in emergencies)[64][292][293]
Armament
• Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.2 in) GIAT 30/M791 autocannon with 125 rounds
• Hardpoints: 14 for Air Force versions (Rafale B/C), 13 for Navy version
(Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg (20,900 lb) external fuel and
ordnance and provisions to carry combinations of:
◦ Missiles:
◦ Air-to-air:
▪ Magic II
▪ MBDA MICA IR or EM
▪ MBDA Meteor (planned)
◦ Air-to-ground:
▪ MBDA Apache
▪ MBDA Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG
▪ AASM-Hammer (SBU-38/54/64)
▪ GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-22 Paveway III, GBU-24
Paveway III, GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II
▪ AS-30L
▪ Mark 82[294]
◦ Air-to-surface:
▪ MBDA AM 39-Exocet anti-ship missile
◦ Nuclear Deterrence:
▪ ASMP-A nuclear missile
◦ Other:
▪ Thales Damocles targeting pod
▪ Thales AREOS (Airborne Recce Observation System)
reconnaissance pod[295]
▪ Thales TALIOS multi-function targeting pod in the future
(F3R Standard)[296]
▪ Up to 5 drop tanks
▪ Buddy-buddy refuelling pod[73]
Avionics
• Thales RBE2-AA AESA radar
• Thales SPECTRA Electronic Warfare system.
• Thales/SAGEM-OSF Optronique Secteur Frontal infra-red search and
track (IRST) system 
6.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/military-uses-
space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarisation_of_space
Military Uses of Space
During human history, the exploration of space has been based on more than just scientific
potential. People may like to believe that we are exploring the cosmos purely for academic
purposes, but the truth is that space plays a huge role in both offensive and defensive military
planning. In fact, much of the exploration that humans have already achieved would not have
come to pass if it had not been for the military motives that underpin most space missions. Long
before satellites orbited Earth for cell phone calls,global positioning systems , or picture taking,
the military was interested in space. Commercial interest would not come until years later.
While many countries now have space agencies and conduct missions into space, it was the
United States and Russia who first began the competition to reach the stars. In 1957, more than
a decade after World War II, and after the Cold War had been in bloom for years, the "space
race" began. The Cold War—a war of spies and threats, of moves and counter-moves—had
reached a new plateau. Nuclear power had been demonstrated by both superpowers and as
rockets began slowly to become more advanced, space weaponry became the new battleground.
Not only could weapons be placed in space, but powerful cameras could be used for spying on
the enemy. The potential uses for space during the Cold War were numerous and clearly visible.
Each side believed that having weapons in orbit could mean their success in this war and the
destruction of their enemies. Test planes were designed to fly in space, while rockets became
more than just short range missiles. Satellites would soon be designed and the launches would
lead to panic and confusion.
In 1952 branches of the U.S. military, including the air force and the navy, along with private
companies began trying to design planes for space travel. During a time when all planes flew
with propellers, these ideas were unheard of. When the experimental X-15 debuted in 1958, the
craft was far ahead of other planes. For nine years, these three hypersonic, or faster than
sound, planes made more than 200 trips with twelve different pilots. They continued their trips
during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. These craft would lead designers to create a
reusable spacecraft that later became the space shuttle. Amazingly, these planes made it into
space and landed back on Earth decades before the space shuttle ever flew.
Ironically, the role these weapons played would become more defensive than offensive. As each
superpower increased its stockpile of nuclear arms and continued its space program, it was
obvious that an attack and destruction of one would lead to the mutual destruction of the other.
Great efforts were made by both sides to keep the mutual destruction from happening while
secretly trying to gain the advantage.
In January 1954, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles announced the new "Massive
Retaliation" policy. If the Soviet Union attacked, the United States would return the attack with
its huge nuclear arsenal. Despite this, the Cold War would continue to grow in scope, and while
no nuclear weapons were fired, there were plenty of times when this Cold War almost became a
hot one.
Russia Takes the Lead
Three years later, in 1957, America went through one of its biggest nuclear scares. On October 4,
the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the world's first artificial satellite. Even though it was only
the size of a basketball, many believed that a nuclear warhead was onboard and that this was a
Russian attack. During the 98 minutes that it circled Earth, the 83 kilogram (183-pound) ball
showed that the space race was no longer theoretical, or even solely missile based.
In reality, the Soviets had simply beaten the United States to the first satellite launch. No
nuclear warhead was onboard and the only thing given off by Sputnik was a radio transmitter's
beep, proving that the satellite was functioning properly.
The Soviet Union would improve its lead, as it would soon send up Sputnik II, containing a small
dog in its cargo. This was still before any U.S. satellite had been launched. The seriousness of
the situation led Congress to pass the National Aeronautics and Space Act in July 1958. This act
created NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, on October 1 of that year.
The United States would launch satellites of its own, but for years Russia maintained the lead in
the space race. Russia beat the Americans to records for the first person in space, Yuri Gagarin;
the first space walk, Alexei Leonov; and the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova.
As time went on, the Cold War would continue to visit new levels. A mere year after U.S.
President John F. Kennedy had told Americans to begin building bomb shelters in a letter to Life
magazine, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster for
two weeks.
Going to the Moon
It was only the year before when President Kennedy set the bar for the United States—going to
the Moon. He said:
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out,
of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in
this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range
exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.
Great skepticism existed as to whether the United States would be able to perform this task in
the time frame that Kennedy had determined. If Americans got there before the Soviets, it
would mean the end of the race and a U.S. victory; if Americans did not get to the Moon before
the Soviets did, the United States would have lost according to Kennedy. The next year, he
further explained his decision, saying: "We have a long way to go in the space race. We started
late. But this is the new ocean, and I believe the United States must sail on it and be in a
position second to none." Kennedy also uttered this now-famous line: "We choose to go to the
Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because
they are easy, but because they are hard."
Report Advertisement
Seven years later, on July 20, 1969, U.S. astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin would
be the first men to land on the Moon, and Armstrong would say the now immortal line: "That's
one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." The United States had successfully sent
men to the Moon and back before the Soviets. Despite all the setbacks—President Kennedy's
assassination, astronauts who had died in previous Apollo mishaps, and the United States' start
from the underdog position—Americans had won. The country rejoiced, thinking it had won the
space race. But then a new race began.
The New Race
No longer was the race about who could get their citizens to what location. Instead, the war
became about technology. Defenses against offensive systems, imaging for early warning
systems, and weapon ships for ensuring military victory. The Russians would build Mir, and the
United States would build its Skylab. When the space shuttle was built, the hope was to have
numerous shuttles, keeping one above Earth at all times, and possibly armed with nuclear
weapons. Both sides launched satellites for spying, photography, and communication
interception.
As the years went on, each division of the military would begin to form its own agenda for space
defense and offense. Plans continued to become more complex, until on March 23, 1983, U.S.
President Ronald Reagan introduced a plan for a new defense system, nicknamed Star Wars. In
his speech, the president spoke of the continuing threat of Soviet attack and raised the
question, "What if free people could live secure in the knowledge . . . that we could intercept
and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil. . . ?" The controversy
began.
The underlying technology was very new and untested. The idea that the required accuracy to
destroy a missile either with a laser or by colliding another missile with it was too advanced. The
concept was ahead of its time and was never successfully developed during President Reagan's
days in office. Ironically, the animations of this shown on television during that time were
created by the television networks and not by NASA or the government.
During U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration, tests were conducted to try and shoot down a
test missile by hitting it with another. Every test failed. The proposed Missile Defense System or
Missile Defense Shield did not look promising. During the office of U.S. President George W.
Bush, the Missile Defense Shield again became a priority; despite massive cost overruns and
failures, the tests continued.
It was during this time that the Missile Defense Shield had its biggest success and failure. For the
first time, the test worked and the missile was successfully destroyed. However, the proposed
Missile Defense System is in violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the United
States and Russia both signed. The treaty was one of many between the 1960s and the present
designed to continue moving away from the prospect of nuclear holocaust. President Bush has
stated that he believes the treaty is outdated, and will continue tests in spite of it. Russian
President Vladimir Putin has not agreed to abandon the treaty and is a strong critic of the plan.
As of this writing, each side claims they are willing to make compromises to the treaty, but the
exact form those compromises will take has yet to be seen.
Another controversial event occurred during President Clinton's term in office when the armed
forces were given the right to attack another spacecraft, whether it be government owned or
privately owned, should it "attempt to hinder the ability of U.S. spacecraft to operate freely in
space." Any such attempted hindrance is now considered to be an attack on the United States
itself. At first, this piece of legislation was destroyed using the line item veto but, on appeal,
the U.S. Supreme Court found the line item veto unconstitutional and this new policy replaces
the one put in place by President Reagan in 1987.
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has been struggling to try and keep its space
program afloat. From the costs of upkeep on the Mir space station to the new International
Space Station, the Russian Space Agency has undergone many challenges. In 2001 the
organization was restructured again as Russia continued to cut back on its military space
program. Between cost concerns for the International Space Station and political feelings about
Missile Defense Systems, experts predict that Russia's space program will either undergo a vast
transformation in the coming years or a terrible collapse. Russia and the United States are not
the only countries, however, with space programs.
Today, many different space agencies exist in numerous countries. France has its agency, the
Direction Générale de l'Armement or DGA, while Japan has its own space agency, called NASDA,
or the National Space Development Agency, founded in 1969. Even countries without large space
agencies still have launch sites for military and commercial satellites. Brazil has prime real
estate, near the equator, for launches. (Being closer to the equator means the rocket can leave
Earth having used less fuel.) Many countries are joining together and launching satellites and
rockets by combining their money and resources. It is in this fashion that the International Space
Station is being built. Ironically though, as countries come together to build this station, many
still develop and launch satellites designed for defense against other countries. It indicates that
space exploration may always include a defensive submotive, at least as long as there is
disagreement here on Earth.
Now, many military officers carry specially modified computer laptops that rely on satellite-
guided data to ensure the positions of themselves, their allies, and their targets. The accuracy
available is so remarkable, it puts the revolutionary GPS to shame. Military satellites with these
abilities can map areas on Earth down to the last inch, and possibly even smaller areas. Full
information on military space capabilities is not made available to the public.
see also Global Positioning System (volume 1); Launch Facilities (volume 4); Military Customers
(volume 1); Space Industries (volume 4)
9.
To start on an optimistic note, education system in India is

competitive and trains students rigorously to withstand fierce
competition on a worldwide scale. We must acknowledge that our
scholars are at par if not superior to most of the students abroad.
Indians are a power to reckon with due to their sheer talent and
efficiency, and this can be attributed to their rigorous training at
school and college degree.
Having read this, we must likewise admit that our (Indian) education
system calls for a 'makeover'. It is too much information oriented,
which leaves little scope for creativity, inventions and self-learning.
Thither is a demand to revise the syllabus / curriculum periodically

in order to attain it more interesting for the scholars. Modern day
education also gives way to instill moral values and discipline in the
immature brains that could enable them to become safer and more
responsible human beings. Modern day educational needs to
enable the future generation to withstand the tensions and stresses
of society and forge ahead amidst trials and trials. The growing
incidence of crimes and suicides committed by juveniles and the
youth speaks volumes of the deficiencies of our training system.
· The greatest drawback of our education system is the
presence of so many different tables.
Almost every nation of India owns a curriculum of its own. What we
require is a single Board with a solid course of study which includes
things other than just 5 subjects until 10th standard and 2 choices
after that.
· Training in sports should be commenced from the very

outset of schooling process. This is something that Indian
schools have constantly neglected. Many schools do not even have
proper sports teachers. For the sake of formality, students are given
a football or a cricket ball once a week and left on playground to
practice whatever they like to manage with it. It results in the
students do not have natural athletic abilities just sit and see while
others play (sometimes they are made goalkeeper or something
else where their presence is least noticed)
· There are problems connected with our scheme which

cannot be solved without improving the caliber of instructors.
As of immediately, teaching is the last career option for a
person which is why there is a deficiency of quality teachers in
India. Instructors in various coaching institutes of India, which
develop students for competitive examinations have understood this
point and pay their teachers immensely. Some of the teachers in
Kota are paid more than 1 crore per annum. Due to this extremely
qualified people are drawn towards teaching profession and apart
from skills, personalities of students are too grown. It is my personal
observation that Students get animated by their instructors. The
personality of the teacher who teaches them has a great
impact on the student's head. There have to be teachers whose
very presence inspire students to accomplish something. This can
occur only when the highly qualified people themselves turn a
component of the teaching profession.

The current form of Indian education organization was produced in
colonial times to generate babies (clerks) and civil servants. The
most significant feature in this was to teach them complete
subordination, without any deviation. Wait there, doesn’t it sound
like a perfect recipe to kill creativity and invention. Sadly the
scheme has not shifted much at root level ever since. I would test to
list few flaws with content within and beyond the current responses.

1) Formulas wins over concepts, rote learning wins over
critic analyzing, marks wins over knowledge and theory wins
over practice
Our training system currently resembles a huge rat race, quite

bloody in fact. Let me share one incident:
Last year my cousin was not chosen for a prestigious college exam
(JEE Advanced) despite of scoring decent in its preliminary
entrance. Reason was that when his 12th marks were weighed in
along with the scotch, he got out of the inclination. Then I guessed
he must have done terrible in 12th exams. Surprisingly, his 12th
score was about 87% (as per grading system).
So a guy with 87% is not eligible to sit for the scrutiny of a college.
90% are like the basic minimum requirement to engender a
respectable college. And you can’t get 9/10 in examinations if you
write any opinion of yours that even diverges 10% of what is written
in text books. Then how on earth will a student ever find a courage
to compose their thoughts or question ‘their’ questions.
2) Not All jobs are equal – result is the continuing scarcity
of ‘SPARTANS’
Unless you are too rich that formal education doesn’t matter to you
or too pathetic that you can’t afford education, You can’t be JUST
an athlete, or merely a singer, or merely a painter (barring a handful
of exceptions). You accept to be an engineering/medical degree
holder before pursuing what you truly desire. That is some sheer
wastage of human imagination, isn’t it?
Likewise, neither all streams are equal. It gets no sense
that to take science (PCM/B) after 10th grade, you have to score
above 80+ while if you make less than 55%, Arts remains the only
door open for you. It just shows the herd mentality/prejudice that
persists in society about subjects and professions.

3) Shortage of well-trained and motivated teaching staff
Although the minimum salary and prestige may be (and are) the
reasons for this, but the story works well beyond this. Equally it is
hard to explain govt. Schools performing poorer than private
schools where teachers’ pay is comparatively less. It goes with
corruption in appointments to shabby teacher training programs and
rests in a peaceful not demanding ‘permanent’ job without concrete
performance evaluations.
Also, teachers at any school must not be permitted to pay private

tuition. It sounds ridiculous that every student requires coaching
besides school (the sad reality). Wait, wasn't that supposed to pass
off in those 8 hours of school time.
Current motto "School for certificate, coaching for field" must
convert.
4) Reservation
Although touchy topic and I am relatively in favor (this requires one

complete post) of keeping it for short term until a concrete resource
based reservation system can be created (like for the bottom 20 %
in terms of riches). It is agreeable beyond doubt that the Indian
reservation system is more politically induced than for welfare use.
It discourages (both the one that gets and the ones that don’t)
more than it can possibly encourage students to study and believe
in a mediocre play.
And yes, if you are a poor (say below poverty line) Brahmin… Best
of luck!
5) We focus on everything Except RESEARCH and

TRAINING
In the continuum of education, we lies in-between. We ignore both

the guiding poles. Results are herds of ‘educated’ graduates who
are not innovators, neither experts nor skilled enough to be
employable. More integration between universities and Industries
and inviting private sector for research could be one solution.

6) Low budgets and Highly unregulated Higher studies
Our(govt. ’s) expenditure on education is below 4% of GDP

whereas 6% is believed to be the minimum required. Most of it goes
to primary education (SSA), which is understandable. But the
problems are the exploding numbers of sub-standard educational
institutions and universities and easy affiliation norms (though
things are changing on this fronts). One can see arrays of so called
colleges along major highways at fringes of all major cities.
Now that was some serious amount of pessimism wrapped up in
one answer. Indeed there are many positive sides as well, but let us
reserve that for some other post.  
10.
Here's my bit based my four years at IIT-M's ME department.  
( An official Research Program: It's a pity that undergraduate students at IIT

have no official route if they are interested in research, rather, people have to go
around and personally ask professors to take them on as students. Even if
students do get taken in, they are not paid for research work (not the case in most
European and American Universities), and as a consequence, neither do they have
any reviews. In fact, if I was a first year student at IITM and was interested in
doing research, I would have to first go around begging people to let me stay on
during the vacation and asking them to sign stupid vacation allowance papers.
Nobody is even encouraging of the fact that you want to stay back and do research
in the institute (in vacations). There's really no proper way for students to get
initiated into research - no research seminars, faculty advisers who don't care, and
even faculty who outright hate B.Tech students and don't want them to do
research. Here's an example of what I want (although i doubt we'll ever get to
it): Stanford Summer |
( Practical emphasis: The problem with IIT education is that there is a lot of
emphasis on theory, but hardly any on the practical aspect of engineering. Save
for one's compulsory laboratory courses, there are practically NO courses which
focus on practical aspects of engineering in IIT-M. The problem is that even core
laboratory courses in many departments, such as mechanical engineering as
pathetic because Teaching Assistants tell you everything you have to do , set up
the experiment for you, make you copy lab manuals (word-for-word), and even
tell you the equation and the corresponding graphs you have to plot. Frankly, its
so spoon-fed that people don't learn anything from the process. Anyways, back to
what i was saving: would it not be great if IIT had courses, which for example,
allowed you to build something at the end of the course, to teach you not only
practice, but also aspects like project management? Here's an example: Stanford
students learn to build their own bikes
( Smaller classes, no PPT's: A lot of professors in IIT have resorted to using
PPT's as the only means to teach courses. Somehow, the fact that the PPT is
supposed to be a teaching "aid" and not the only medium to teach seems lost upon
professors. As a consequence, many classes are outright boring, and the material,
uninteresting. Many students start bunking classes, and eventually lose interest in
core material.
( Websites: Probably the most putting-off aspect for a student is the lack of any
information on the website. Just look at the academics page of the ME website for
example: http://mech.iitm.ac.in/Academics... and you'll understand for yourself.
It's not just the lack of information, the lack of aesthetic and professional appeal
is appalling. As one person pointed out in the comments below, imagine applying
to IITM for a PhD based on that page! And you're training us to be professionals?
If I was an exchange student, I would be outright disappointed to see this, because
it really tells me nothing about the research / social events / seminars going on in
the department. I would definitely not feel like coming here. Even for enrolled
students, not having an up-to-date website is putting off: If I was interested in
research, I shouldn't have to go around the entire department for knowing what
professors are working on currently.
( Mundane Work: During all my workshop and laboratory classes, I remember
TA's telling me to go back, and copy the lab manual word - for - word. What's the
use? I don't remember anything now. How about asking people to solve some real
questions as part of take home laboratory work?
( Inefficient Administration: It takes forever to get around IIT-M's
administrative procedures. If a laboratory wanted new scientific equipment, it
would have to produce "8" different quotations from different vendors - in the
end, the product with the lowest cost would be selected. Just imagine the amount
of time it takes to get 8 different quotations, not to mention the amount of time it
then takes to go around getting stupid signatures and talking to people urging
them to process the order. There is no easy way to know, in the first place, what
the administrative procedures are, and everyone has a different view of what the
procedures are. You go to person X and he says something, you go to person Y and
he says something else. What's worse, most of it is still OFFLINE, meaning, you
have to print papers & scan them & get them signed and so on. Another example:
All students are supposed to submit multiple hard copies of their thesis. What's
the use? To waste paper so that they can rot on long forgotten bookshelves? How
about having an online portal for all theses with a searchable index?
( Negligence of basic civil facilities: Most university campus administrators
believe that a university should have aesthetic and artistic appeal, for that
encourages students to think. IIT-M definitely does not think so. Hostels are a
state of neglect and bathrooms and corridors are filthy. Staying in the hostel is
very uninspiring, the say the least, especially so during summer. Many labs in IIT-
M are also a mess with equipment thrown all over the place. When your
surroundings are in a state of utter neglect, how do you feel motivated to study or
do research? We Indians are used to it, but I've heard foreigners living in our
hostels shocked and disappointed. Why shouldn't they be?
( Bland, uninteresting examinations: Many exams just test rote memorization
of formula & "whether" you have looked at previous years papers. The problem is
that there is an excessive reliance on factual knowledge rather than application.
Furthermore, a lot of exams try to test how fast you are, rather than how well you
can think. In the 4 years I was at IIT, I only wrote 1 "unlimited time" examination!
Furthermore, a lot of courses are graded just for the heck of it. Viva voce and
BTP's for example (Not to mention all the labs). No one's really interested in
seeing whether students have learned anything. It's been there in the system since
forever, and will continue to be.
( Better professors: Save for a select few, the vast majority of professors in IIT
don't know how to teach (thus resort to PPTs) and can be very boring. Your JEE
profs were way, way better than them. Surely, this cannot be the fate of the best
Institute in the country? (Of course, considering how low the pay is (and the fact
that most professors know that students who come here are going to be earning
more than them when they pass out), its hard to imagine world class faculty in
IIT-M. The lack of monetary benefit throws off talent.
( No intellectual atmosphere: Studying long hours and asking interesting
questions is looked down upon in IIT. People are so insecure about themselves
that they would rather put down such people. In-fact, we even invented a word for
it - it's called "RGing". Where did we go wrong to reach this state?
( Internship Policy: Currently, the Mechanical department does not accept
foreign internships / research internships / internships within the institute itself
to be credited. Further, it won't credit second year interns. Why is it that only an
Industrial intern, that too, in the third year is counted for credits? Shouldn't the
administration, rather, have a review once an intern is complete and then decide
for yourself whether the intern is worth crediting?
( Collaborative centers for research: The way I see it, there are very few
research centers which involve faculty from multiple departments. Neither is it
flexible for students who want to work across multiple departments. Its not just
the centers, IIT-M does not have shared professorship either. Many elite
universities allow that, and in that way, professors are part of multiple
departments. This is one way in which students can easily move across
departments.
( Course Structure: In order to gain expertise in a particular field of research, it
is often impossible to cover all the material in one course. Take a course on CFD
for example. The basic course teaches you the basics on finite difference schemes,
stuff on stability and convergence etc. We learn it, but 4 months of CFD is hardly
enough to get a thorough experience. Top American Universities handle this issue
by creating a Sequence of Courses on a particular topic. For example, CFD Level A
is handled in one semester by a professor, and the next semester CFD Level B is
offered by the same professor. By having multiple levels in a particular course, we
can have a strong core specialization at the end of the B.Tech Curriculum in one
area and a breadth in other areas. Here's an example of the sequence
system: SPDL Home Page (Note: This particular course is offered over "4"
quarters, with levels A, B, C and D. By the time students finish the D level, they
are expected to be very competent in that particular topic.
( Curriculum Revamp and Revision: Many compulsary core courses in ME, I
believe, are outdated. Especially the ones on Manufacturing. Yes, a basic course
on manufacturing techniques is needed, but it is not taught through rote
instruction, rather, by a combination of good lectures and a parallel lab. Labs
should be a parallel component of many courses, failing which, I don't think we
can retain knowledge. Departments must make sure that curricula are revised
often, and should encourage healthy discussion with students and other
universities to best chalk out revisions.
( A lack of vision: 
If we don’t have a proper vision in the first place, how can IIT-M be a world-class
institute?  
Ref:http://www.iitm.ac.in/fsportal/s... 
Examples:
o Slide 2: Ph.D students : Increase intake, reduce duration, improve quality. How
does this make any sense? Are you telling me that quality is proportional to intake
and inversely proportional to duration?
o Slide 8: To get better students, we must improve the perception of our
programme? Is this what you are so focussed about - improving the
“perception”? Shouldn’t you be more concerned about improving the program
itself?
( There are many more flaws, but the above two are examples.
( Stop encouraging irrational thought: IIT-M seems to have forged a
rejuvenated link with pseudoscience. Literally every week, there is some or the
other lecture in IIT-M's auditoriums telling us about "Vedic Metallurgy","The so-
called theory of 'I' (named after a certain Swami Isa!) particles & why high
energy physics is flawed", or something as nonsensical as that. Read this and be
shocked: http://t5e.iitm.ac.in/2014/03/a-.... As one reader aptly put it - "The
sheer amount of pseudoscience being dumped on an ‘institute of national
importance’ is unbelievable". What exactly is the aim of such stupid lectures? To
put us on a more Indianized path and talk about the glories of this nation? This is
a serious issue because you're draining the logic in the so called brighest minds of
this country. Imagine this happening to kids: http://indianexpress.com/article/
india/gujarat/science-lesson-from-gujarat-stem-cells-in-mahabharata-cars-in-
veda/99/ & try to extrapolate the direction this country is going in. Well, stop
imagining. This IS the direction the country is going in if you can't stop your so
called religious/spiritual propoganda. And don't tell me this should be allowed
because the country is secular. Educating people with the right facts is more
important.
I graduated from IIT-M with a high CGPA that I don't feel proud about. I think the best
way to judge any system is to ask yourself an honest question: How empowered do I feel on
the basis of just coursework and laboratories at the end of 4 years (to tackle any technical
aspect, and core interviews as well). If your answer is that all your empowerment comes
from work outside coursework, it pretty much means that the system has failed. That's it,
I'm going to stop my rant now. I have some other issues, but i think I've covered the core of
the problem. This answer is already way too long.If you see any other major problems, do
add them to the comments section below/add another answer.  
Other links:
In the world- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

List_of_submarine_classes_in_service
In India-
a.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Indian_Navy
b.) https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/submarines-active
2. http://indianairforce.nic.in/content/fighter-aircrafts

Defence

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Defence

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1. Got this interesting read...

1) Pressure Hull Steel

2) Air-Independent Propulsion

The module, which is capable of significantly increasing a submarine’s underwater endurance,

3) Heavyweight Torpedoes

4) Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile

A submarine-launched version of the Indo-Russian missile wassuccessfully test-fired from a

Kalvari S 21 14 Dec 2017

Chakra S 71 04 Apr 2012

Sindhugosh S 55 30 Apr 1986

Sindhudhvaj S 56 12 Jun 1987

Sindhuraj S 57 20 Oct 1987

Sindhuvir S 58 26 Aug 1988

Sindhuratna S 59 22 Dec 1988

Sindhukesari S 60 16 Feb 1989

Sindhukirti S 61 04 Jan 1990

Sindhuvijay S 62 08 Mar 1991

Shishumar S 44 22 Sep 1986

Shankush S 45 20 Nov 1986

Shalki S 46 07 Feb 1992

Shankul S 47 28 May 1994

Conceptual drawing of INS Arihant

Mirage-2000 : A single seater air defence and multi-role fighter of French

MiG-21 BISON : Single engine, single seater multirole fighter/ground attack

Jaguar : A twin-engine, single seater deep penetration strike aircraft of Anglo-

A Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-57.

Electronic warfare aircraft[edit]

A USAF EF-111A Raven

Maritime patrol aircraft[edit]

Multirole combat aircraft[edit]

A People's Liberation Army Air Force Shenyang J-15.

An Airbus A400M Atlas of the German Luftwaffe.

An Indian Air Force Beriev A-50EI Mainstay

National Academy of Sciences

The Global Positioning System, National Academy of Sciences, 1996

A Climate that Promotes Technological

Government Support for Commercial Technologies

Public and Private Responsibilities Should Be

Geographic Data Collection, Use,

Gaps in Workforce Training and Continuing

The International Context of Innovating and

Continued Vigilance on US Technological

Rafale Solo Display

Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. Rafale M.

To start on an optimistic note, education system in India is

Thither is a demand to revise the syllabus / curriculum periodically

· Training in sports should be commenced from the very

· There are problems connected with our scheme which

Our training system currently resembles a huge rat race, quite

Also, teachers at any school must not be permitted to pay private

Although touchy topic and I am relatively in favor (this requires one

5) We focus on everything Except RESEARCH and

In the continuum of education, we lies in-between. We ignore both

Our(govt. ’s) expenditure on education is below 4% of GDP

Here's my bit based my four years at IIT-M's ME department.

( An official Research Program: It's a pity that undergraduate students at IIT

In the world- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Вам также может понравиться

Here's my bit based my four years at IIT-M's ME department.  