What does 60% ToT mean ?
It should be fairly self evident. 60% of the requisite production processes allowing us to manufacture the bulk of the item & critical spares and consumables locally. The detailed breakup of what items and manufacturing processes that constitute TOT are available in DPP 2008.
And after having tech. transferred for the last 60 years how come we still import 70% of our weapons?
A serious topic deserves better rather than ideology driven 2-3 liners. The fact is that most of the so called tech transfer agreements viz most of our programs were rudimentary, and included restrictive clauses on what we could and could not manufacture locally. As late as a few years back, India had IP clauses to honor which prevented it from manufacturing over 70% of the Milan 2 ATGM locally. The same restriction exists on many systems.
However, license manufacturing has played a huge role in exposing our manufacturing & R&D systems to developments worldwide, and allowed us to leverage those in multiple local programs. For obvious reasons, nobody is going to tom tom those.
In recent days, with the growth of the Indian economy & the MOD willing to spend and play hardball, TOT restrictions have been relaxed but are still vulnerable to political issues, but still significantly better than yesteryears.
Hint: we need our signifocant domestic R & D something parasitic state undertakings will never do as well as private companies. A fact borne out by EVERY country in the world.
The hint isn't worth diddly squat, especially when one sees the last line which shows a lack of serious investigation on the topic.
The leading arms manufacturers in the world include a fair sprinkling of state owned and run enterprises, many of whose critical achievements were during a period of Govt control and sponsorship. These include companies in Israel, South Africa & Europe. As regards private companies, they are driven by the profit motive & unless the Indian Armed Forces place bulk orders, rather than the current system of LSP & then trickle piece orders till the final production is cleared, many firms will simply not find it viable to compete or even invest in own R&D for orders that take far too long to fructify.
Leading organizations worldwide continue to have significant Gov ownership and support. SOGEADE owns 30% of EADS, and in itself is half owned by the French Government. While Daimler is the other key stakeholder, its a well known fact that the French & German Govt's both have a key interest in EADS. The firm in turn holds a 37.5% stake in MBDA, with corresponding equal stakes held by Finmeccanica & BAE Systems.
It is a fact of life that while defence was a priority during the Cold War, most Governments owned many key firms directly and spent prodigiously in developing the infrastructure and R&D that constituted successful programs. Post Cold War, with shrinking budgets, the support has been indirect but substantial, in terms of ensuring these firms remain private in but name, and remain in national ownership and significant local programs are launched and continue to be launched with huge leeway given towards local procurement and Govt funding.
India's key defence partner, Israel Aerospace Industries, is Govt owned. The Israeli Knesset has been firm about its ownership being in Govt hands all this while, despite the problems it engenders in making acquisitions of the size Finmeccanica made with DRS to gain a stake in the lucrative US market. As with Indian PSU's, IAI leaders are public about the issues posed by Govt ownership including the need to pay large dividends which limit their allocation to other expense accounts such as R&D & infrastructure, but the company has the unequivocal backing of the Israeli Govt. in turn & still manages to outspend all its peers on R&D even while it relies on exports for 81% of its revenue base.
In the Indian context, the key challenge is that private firms need significant hand holding - this is something which takes time & effort and does not translate to rapid advances overnight.http://www.financialexpress.com/news/DR ... es/631146/
Note: PS Subramanyams comments - the point is not all programs & program budgets have the leeway in terms of cost & time to allow for this handholding approach...
But let me tell you one thing. There is a thinking that these government people are hesitant to take the private industry into confidence. But there are so many gaps in the way they understand airworthy requirements.
When we started with a private company for total software development of an electronic equipment, the multifunctional display, in the first phase my people did 80% of the job. Every time the work was given to them, it was brought back with mistakes. Our team was fed up. In phase two, for the development of software for a higher version, it was 50-50. Today, it is almost 10-90. We have to go through this.
..and this is software.
The issue is more critical at the airframer & integration level.http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/1500252 ... -firs.html
State-run military plane maker Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, or HAL, will produce India’s first passenger aircraft, after the Indian Air Force, or IAF, chose HAL over private sector companies such as Mahindra Aerospace and Larsen and Toubro Ltd (L&T).
IAF will be the first customer for the 14-seater, multi-role aircraft called Saras, which will be the first passenger plane to be designed and manufactured in the country.....
“IAF felt that the (private) industry partners (still) do not have the skills and infrastructure to integrate a full plane,” said one scientist at NAL, who did not want to be identified. “They wanted one (manufacturing partner) who they were already comfortable with.”
These are not issues that can be merely wished away by raving & ranting. The private organizations have their place & chance to be in the limelight but they will need to invest time & effort to acquire the skills that already exist elsewhere.