Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Take the Brahmos co-development for example, without Russian tot especially on the propulsion and seeker, we wouldn't have such a weapon in our inventory today. We have it, because we used the co-development to include what we was able to do so far and got the part that we couldn't do from the Russians. Now we are at a level to further develop the missile to new varients, applications and even with NG versions in mind.
Same goes for the Maitri SAM, which also is developed according to Indian requirements with the techs that we can't provide and is meant to add French parts and capabilities that we don't have yet.
FGFA, we include materials, coatings, avionics, while we get ToT of the most powerful AESA radar, NG engines and other techs that we aren't able to develop on our own...
...
...
On the other side we have LCA, that sadly was developed with waaay too many indigenous parts in fields where we wasn't realistically able to provide something and that's why the project suffered all the delays and problems and why it will be inducted only decades behind schedule.
Also the Kaveri engine, developed alone, failed completetly and not ready to power an operational fighter anytime soon if we keep doing it alone. So all the money and time was wasted and now we search for a co-development or JV to fix the problems.
LCA and Kaveri as programs were still important, but overestimating your capabilities with the wrong idea that you have to develop anything on your own will lead us nowhere as these developments sadly proved. As I said, times have changed and today we can demand way more than we could in the past and why co-developments and JVs under our requirements are so important for India, if we don't want to remain a generation behind China, Russia or the West and want to catch up faster.
Russians, americans, Israelis, french, all of them can design weapon systems at their will, they got this capability from, product development culture, not reverse engineering or license production regime. There are no shortcuts to success dear.
Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2?
Sources close to idrw.org have confirmed that development of AESA for Tejas MK-2 is under way with foreign assistance in the program, but sources are hinting that AESA radar might not be ready for integration on first prototype of Tejas MK-2 which will be rolled out by mid of next year and will have it first flight by year end.
HAL plans to put Tejas MK-2 in production by 2016 but New Aesa radar will require more time in integration’s of weapons and separate validation test on each weapons , it is likely that first batch of Tejas MK-2 will come with older MMR radar developed for Tejas MK-1 and it seems IAF is ok with that .
Sources have also informed that AESA radar is still under development stage and will enter Ground based testing stage and then aircraft integration’s with Test bed aircraft so entering in first batch of Tejas MK-2 is highly unlikely .
which basically means that the AESA,even with foreign design and imported parts and software,won't be ready before year 2020 ends。
In the meantime,China's J-16 multi-role fighter bomber,seen here carrying a pair of PL10Cs and with China's own AESA,is near IOC:
which basically means that the AESA,even with foreign design and imported parts and software,won't be ready before year 2020 ends。
In the meantime,China's J-16 multi-role fighter bomber,seen here carrying a pair of PL10Cs and with China's own AESA,is near IOC:
Not really, especially the Russians and Americans benefitted after the world wars, by re-engineering German technologies, be it for rockets, jet fighters and jet engines, even stealth design, coatings and materials. Not to mention all the German scientiests that were hired by them later, to gain from their knowledge. China did similar things with Russian techs, designs or even Russian scientists. So there are shortcuts to develop things painfully alone with high costs, at long timeframes and only minimum effect for the forces. And when you live in the most dangeours neighborhood in the world, you can't afford to waste time and money and compromise on national defence, only for the sake of pride and the industry, especially not the privat one!
The defence of the country must always come first, that's why FGFA is the most important project for the security of the country and why LCA is the most important project for the aero industry.
Btw, a failed Kaveri project might have gained us some experience, but caused major delays in LCA, which then resulted in Mig 21 not being replaced in time and loss of lives. If we had used a foreign licence produced engine, the fighter would be successfully in service yet and we could have saved these lifes, while the Kaveri project could had been done seperately as a Tech Demo project. Even if that had failed, it wouldn't had any effect on the LCA project, so licence producing things, even with minimum benefit of ToT is sometimes better than trying it alone, which is why we need A MIX OF BOTH and not the one OR the other!
German re-engineering is not as huge as you think. The first patent for using a gas turbine on an aircraft M. Guillaum, a french national, way before the germans, RAF had started developmental work on a jet engine back in the late 20's, Sergey Korolev's GIRD-6 project in 1932 shows russia's developmental work in ramjet and rocket work in the 1932. These exploratory work is nothing but product development. Russian a2a missiles, A2G weaponry, ICBM,s SAM's, Radars, Electronics, Welding technology, metrology has nothing to do with German re-engineering, they owe it to product development and product management.
If you claim you will deliver the project that takes 25 years in 10 years, it is not the fault of the design or product developmental cycle, it is faulty project management. You need to understand your technical strengths, provide the right forecasts for delivery of projects so that the procurement services can establish the right interim solutions untill your indigenous capabilities are ready.
First if your aircrafts vintage is affecting your safety, there is not excuse in flying it.
Next major cause is the lack of lead in jet trainer, guess who delayed the AJT by 15 years, it sure as hell wasn't HAL or DRDO
As far as learning goes, tell me how many indegenious projects have cropped out of brahmos.
Next we have been making turmansky, kataruchevs, al31f's, rolls royce adour, does our kaveri gtrx derrive any tooling from any of the projects? the answer is a big big NO.
I again repeat, co-development projects are great for developing capabilities, and having state of the art equipment, it is great to get technical insight and leaning about newer technologies, but untill you have your own product development protocols set in stone, foreign dependencies will always haunt you. There are no short cuts and you have to do the hard work, every thing from design to delivery and service to be in the market as a world leader.