I am saying
ldev wrote:I have pasted the essential part of your long post. That HAL's chequered licence built history over numerous types of fighter aircraft has resulted in no transfer of technology. You are correct. But please point out to me as to where in my post I have stated that India should ask for or expect TOT in a presumptive collaboration with the BAE Tempest consortium? You have probably attributed to me what numerous other posters have posted in the past without really reading my post. Because I also believe that technology built up over decades is not available no matter how much money you are willing to pay for it and so RR, MBDA et al are not going to hand over their crown jewels no matter what the price is.
that India will never get ToT from any nation. And I am saying
that India will never get any ToT of value on the Tempest program.
And honestly, if no one country is going to (and why should they?) then what is the point of the collaboration? But since you have raised points in your post below on various areas of collaborations, I will address those there.
ldev wrote:So what are the benefits then from a collaboration? Why do countries/companies collaborate? Why does not every single country/company build the full aircraft from the ground up, airframe, engines, sensors. weapons etc. etc. I can think of a few.
Okay, so then why were the following aircraft developed from the ground up by one single country?
All of the above have been largely successful programs. All of the above had different companies contributing to the program, but they all came from one country. The only exception being the ejection seat (Martin Baker, which is British) on the French and the American planes. However the rest of the aircraft - from engine to radar to sensors to airframe or basically anything of value - are from one country. With the first two in the list, the entire aircraft (including the ejection seats) - are Russian.
Now let us look at some collaborations...
1) Eurofighter Typhoon. I believe I explained in brief in my earlier post. But one can ask google chacha on how wonderful that program is progressing. And please ensure you benchmark the progress against the Rafale, its other European brother. Please look up on how the four nation consortium - in which benevolent England was a clear participant - could not agree on much.
2) PAK-FA (Sukhoi Su-57). A joint collaboration between India and Russia. Again, both parted ways and Russia is developing it on her own. India has said it may buy it in the future once development is fully complete. But no collaboration happened. If we buy them, we will buy them as is, off the shelf.
3) New Generation Fighter (6th generation program), a program between France and Germany to replace the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Trouble is brewing and they are only in model/conceptual stage --> Good and Bad News for Franco-German Fighterhttps://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... an-fighter
4) Medium Transport Aircraft (Ilyushin IL-276). A joint collaboration between India and Russia. Both parted ways and Russia is developing it on her own. India will likely buy it or the An-132 in the future, to replace her An-32s currently in service. But no collaboration happened. If we buy them, we will buy them as is, off the shelf.
5) Despite the partner-nation
collaboration concept, the F-35 is an all American plane.
The engine - across all three variants of the F-35 - is the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan. An American company. The radar - across all three variants of the F-35 - is the AN/APG-81 AESA from Raytheon. An American company. The air-to-air weaponry is American, with MBDA providing the Meteor and the AIM-132 ASRAAM to complement the AIM-120 and the AIM-9X. That is largely to placate European customers who will use the MBDA missile systems. Most of the air-to-ground weaponry is also American, but other air-to-ground weaponry is being developed by MBDA for European customers. Again for the same reason.
But no America, no F-35. The American Govt is the largest investor in the F-35 program. Even if no other nation joined, they would have still seen the program to completion. They have the money to invest and take the risk of a cost overrun, regardless of the number. America can afford this.
Now where is the UK's economic prowess compared to America? It is in the shitter because of Brexit and even prior to that. So I ask you again ---> If a future UK Govt had to do a budget choice between the F-35 and the Tempest program, which do you think has a greater chance of survival? An actual working, in-service aircraft or some model in development?
Where will that leave India?
ldev wrote:1) A partner country who is a potential customer for such a fighter, gets an input into the performance characteristics, weapon systems and sensors at the design stage itself so that the plane will more fully meet it's requirements.
Please explain in greater detail on what inputs exactly on performance characteristics, weapon systems and sensors at the design stage that India would benefit from. I would love to know, so please explain. This is the same benevolent England that refused to sell India more advanced aircraft or radar/sensors over the previous decades.
Would the British allow us to incorporate future variants of the Astra BVR missile into the Tempest? Or would it end up like the episode where MBDA/Thales refused to incorporate the Meteor on the Tejas (all because of the Israeli AESA on the upcoming Mk1A variant)?
ldev wrote:2) Development cost is shared by many partners and to it is possible to sink in higher developmental costs and thereby hopefully develop a more advanced aircraft.
Nice in theory, but let us put it into practise shall we?
I am sure India's share of the development costs will come to a minimum of US $1 billion. This is a sixth generation program and all the tech on-board is still not yet even fully conceived. At every stage in the Eurofighter Typhoon development, the four nation consortium were non-committal from production to on-board tech to weaponry. For example, the Euroradar CAPTOR-E is still under development while Indian Rafale F3Rs are coming in 6+ months with Thales' RBE2 AESA radar.
Now what will the work share agreement look like? The British have already pointed in that direction. Coding Software! Why? Because it is cheaper to have Indian software engineers write the code than doing it elsewhere, especially in the UK. Nice cost saving measure on the part of the British. But what does India get in return exactly?
Out of that $1 billion, will Rolls Royce invest any money into GTRE to developing an engine?
Out of that $1 billion, will Leonardo S.p.A. invest any money into LRDE to developing a GaN foundry?
Since neither are going to happen and those are the two areas where India requires the greatest investment and serious development, it is better to invest that $1 billion into GTRE and LRDE. With money towards military programs being scarce in India, it is unwise to invest in a collaboration that will give India little value.
ldev wrote:3) A single country barring somebody like the US and France up until now at least does not have the the expertise in-country to develop an aircraft on their own.
Barring the radar and the engine, India has more or less overcome the challenges in aircraft development. That is clearly evident in the growth path shown in the Tejas Program.
From a Technology Demonstrator in the Tejas program, India now has the following;
* Tejas Mk1 ---> Tejas Mk1A ---> Tejas Mk2
* And now there is an offshoot program called the HAL SPORT, a LIFT type Trainer
* Development lessons learnt above, but not the tech, will be applied into the AMCA program
From a Technology Demonstrator in the Advanced Light Helicopter program, India now has the following;
* HAL Dhruv ---> HAL Rudra ---> HAL Light Combat Helicopter ---> HAL Light Utility Helicopter
* And now there is a program to develop the Indian Multi Role Helicopter (IMRH).
Had we followed Lockheed Martin's advice in the 90s (to end the Tejas program), how much of the above - in the Tejas program - would have seen the light of day? And while benevolent England has invested its scarce resources into the F-35 program, she has come offering collaboration on the Tempest program to the two nations - India and Japan - that have 5th generation fighter programs of their own. I wonder why!
Rather than waste money into Maasa's Poodle Project, it is wiser to invest that money into an Indian aircraft program. We have achieved success is developing our own AESA radar - the Uttam. The first iteration will not be anywhere close to nirvana such as the AN/APG-81 AESA from Raytheon is, but we will improve it in future iterations. But you have to start somewhere. Same is true for the Kaveri program. What India needs is assistance in engine and radars, neither of which any country - including my philanthropic friends from La France - is willing to provide. Then why waste money on anything else?
ldev wrote:4) It is IMO in India's interest that there is at least 1 other potential manufacturer/consortium with a 6th generation aircraft on the drawing boards other than the US and probably China. The Russians IMO frankly no longer have it. The SU-57 is a case in point. If Germany does not pony up cash, I doubt that the French on their own will get a successor to the Rafale and if they do I can assure you that 36 of those aircraft will cost Euro 20 billion.
Where do you expect India to cough up money for this program, in light of all the below;
1) Tejas Mk1A
2) Tejas Mk2
4) 110 MMRCA 3.0 (will cost nothing short of USD $20 billion)
5) 57 carrier borne fighters (initial cost estimates are USD $15 billion)
And these are just aircraft programs. There are naval programs (next generation carrier), army programs (FMBT, FICV, etc) and other air force programs (Super Sukhoi upgrade).
From where do you expect India to pony up the cash, when all this is in the pipeline? And that too to chase a dream with an unreliable poodle, when India has far more urgent requirements.
ldev wrote:5) And yes, the Brits do not have the money, but they have the technology and the ability to put it together. And that precisely why from a financial standpoint you could get a deal with them. You get a deal only when both sides need something that the other has. Try talking to Uncle Sam about a collaboration!!
Uncle Sam and the Brits are two sides of the same coin Saar.
There is nothing that the UK can provide, without Uncle Sam giving the nod.
ldev wrote:6) Learning best practices. Just as the IAF exercises with other air forces to learn best practices, I see only benefits if Indian companies, both government and private sector collaborate with foreign entities.
Best practices are a two way street Saar. In this venture, we will provide cheap labour (coding software) while the UK gets an aircraft and gets to keep all the crown jewels of that aircraft. We will do screwdrivergiri on the aircraft and publish that in an annual MoD report, which will be available online in PDF format and in which many will get wowed. And like the Eurofighter Typhoon, she will like suffer from reliability and availability issues which will also get published in an annual CAG report.
ldev wrote:7) Aircraft technology is a moving target, 5th gen and now 6th generation designs on the drawing board. Why not consider it as a venture capital investment? Is $250 million or even $500 million not a cheap option, when you have national security as the payoff in such a scenario? At the end of say 5 years, either the option will have expired or it will be deep into the money.
Please show us the money. All nice in theory, but the money has to be there.