[Answered] India’s significant propulsion gap and import reliance affect strategic autonomy. Analyze the technological and policy challenges hindering indigenous engine development, impacting national security and defense modernization efforts.

Introduction

India’s inability to develop indigenous propulsion systems for military platforms poses a major threat to its strategic autonomy, delaying defence modernization and undermining national security in a volatile geopolitical environment.

India’s Propulsion Gap: A Strategic Concern

Despite its rising defence ambitions, India remains critically dependent on foreign engine technologies across its air, land, and naval platforms. The reliance on GE F404 and F414 engines for Tejas variants, MTU engines for Arjun tanks, and foreign marine propulsion for Indian Navy vessels underscores a structural incapacity.

This dependency compromises:

1. Military readiness due to delays (e.g., GE’s delay in F404 delivery).
2. Export autonomy, with engines requiring third-party clearances.
3. Technological sovereignty, as foreign suppliers rarely share cutting-edge tech like single-crystal blades or advanced cooling systems.

Case Studies of Indigenous Shortfalls

1. HF-24 Marut (1960s–1990): India’s first indigenous jet fighter was crippled not by design, but by underpowered British Orpheus 703 engines. Resulted in limited deployment and early retirement.
2. Kaveri Engine Programme: Launched in 1989 by DRDO’s GTRE to power the LCA. Spent ₹2,032 crore but failed to meet thrust-to-weight and thermal benchmarks. Over 3,000 hours of testing and 73 flight hours yielded no operational engine. Collaborations with Safran (France) and Snecma failed over tech transfer issues.

Technological Challenges

1. Materials Science Limitations: India lacks expertise in manufacturing single-crystal turbine blades, thermal barrier coatings, and high-temperature alloys.
2. Testing Infrastructure Deficit: Advanced test beds like those in the U.S., Russia, or France are missing. Long gestation periods for validation and certification hinder progress.
3. R&D Ecosystem Fragmentation: Lack of integrated effort among GTRE, HAL, private sector, and academia. Private players are under-incentivized due to the absence of risk-sharing mechanisms.

Policy and Institutional Barriers

1. Overcentralization & Bureaucracy: R&D is monopolized by DRDO without effective industry or academic partnerships. Example: DRDO’s refusal of Safran’s co-development offer due to “institutional pride.”
2. Funding Volatility: Defence R&D allocations are less than 6% of India’s total defence budget, limiting long-term, capital-intensive projects like engine development.
3. Absence of Strategic Vision: Lack of a dedicated national propulsion mission similar to ISRO’s focused space programme. No time-bound mission-mode approach akin to China’s AVIC or the U.S. DARPA-led initiatives.

Impact on Defence Modernization

1. LCA Mk1A, Mk2, and AMCA timelines are directly affected.
2. India’s squadron strength is already down to 30 from a sanctioned 42.5; propulsion delays worsen the gap.
3. Naval warships and tanks rely heavily on foreign-origin engines, weakening deterrence and self-reliance.

Way Forward

1. Launch a National Jet Engine Mission: On the lines of the Semicon India initiative, with international collaborations, shared IP, and risk financing.
2. Leverage Quad/Strategic Partnerships: Deepen defence tech ties with France, UK, and the U.S. for joint R&D with ToT clauses.
3. Boost R&D Investment: Allocate 1.5-2% of GDP to defence R&D, with PPP models for engine testing and material science labs.
4. Skill Development: Establish aerospace engineering universities and dedicated propulsion centres to build human capital.

Conclusion

India’s propulsion gap is a critical vulnerability. Bridging it demands political resolve, long-term investment,