All of these are taken care because R&D expertise are with ADA not HAL.
By the same token does ADA have mfg expertise ? I've seen a lot of illiterate comments on SM including this board on HAL production capacity & expertise . I wonder how many of those commenting have themselves any production expertise or experience ?
I started my career after graduation as a mechanical engineer 2 decades ago as a service engineer in the premier HVAC co of this country in their Central Plants division.
As part of the service branch we were supposed to co ordinate activities with the R&D cell for new product launches which means being part of the design & prototyping cycle & later on the production cycle. Why ? For those products ought to be serviced & typically R&D & production guys lacking that kind of insight usually go in for what suits their requirements first.
That one instance provided me with a plethora of experience into how do design teams think , how are vendors evaluated , how's prototyping done , the difference between a prototype & a pre production unit ( LSP ) , what goes on behind mass mfg , how does economy of scale kick in & so on.
And this was for a relatively low value chiller package unit like a scroll chiller package both air & water cooled where only the design & certain other parts were desi. The vast majority of the unit including the heart of the machine - the compressor , the brains - the PLC , the thermostats etc were all imported. Yet the coordination involved , the testing , the design validation etc was a hair raising , hair tearing experience.
Now, compared to a Fighter Aircraft that too a 5th Gen FA program , that experience was a cakewalk.
Multiple private players has shown their ability to manufacture aerostructure in "build to print". From F-16 wings to Apache fuselage, all are being exported. Essentially, they have already been proven and benchmarked by ADA for the same.
View attachment 46674
So how many aircrafts has TASL or any of those cos pre qualified to bid for the AMCA project mfgd / assembled ? This is like saying Bosch which is one of the biggest ancillary services the world over for automotive cos can claim design expertise in automobiles .
That too Bosch collectively has much more experience of developing & mfg vital automotive components than TASL or any other sub contractor in the Indian aviation ever has or ever will.
Put another way if push came to shove , Bosch can still design & mfg a car whereas TASL lacks the experience to put together a FA. If you're pointing out towards Airbus & the C-295 venture then it's a JV where the entire hand holding is done by Airbus. That too Airbus has both the experience & expertise of building the C-295 & even if they didn't have that experience they certainly have had plenty of experience in building transporters.
I sincerely hope you don't pull a Hydrocele here by claiming Airbus can hand hold TASL in the AMCA project too because that's where your arguments look like it's heading towards.
On emaciate of HAL, Why not exactly? Let the better company wins, thats how capitalism works.
That's not capitalism that's stupidity. You're wrecking a well performing company thru short sighted policies for unknown gains. Capitalism means first & foremost you have a level playing field. Right now HAL is operating with one hand tied behind its back like all PSU's & while pvt sector cos have the advantage of agility in decision making & nimbleness . However they lack the requisite experience..
Where was the same sentiment for OFB? Bhartforge, Adani and SSS are gonna completely destroy them in a decade. You cheer for that but somehow HAL is different?.
I've always advocated the same approach for OFBs . Those OFBs are striking examples of how not to run defence cos . Since they weren't corporatised before they weren't expected to generate a profit . Result they became centres of a socialist economy where vacancies were duly filled in & the machinery employed for production were of WW-2 vintage or slightly later.
I actually recall seeing a documentary a decade back of an OFB where the gunpowder for cartridges were filled with a a hand & a strainer. I'm not kidding you at all . That documentary was in response to complaints of a lot of cartridges misfiring or turning out to be duds . At least HAL hasn't reached such dire straits although plans seem afoot to take it to the levels of those OFBs.
Our priority is to ensure that men in uniform receive the best possible equipment to defend our nation's interests. It's as simple as that. I don't care if it's made by SSS or OFB. I fail to see the value in romanticism with a DPSU.
Yes the armed forces are entitled to receive the best arms & platforms our money can buy just as those OFBs require the best machines there are to helf mfg the best of arms & platforms our armed forces desire .
There's no romanticism about DPSUs only practicality.
You are completely missing the point. It's a private company. They take risks based on their aptitude. It's up to them how to run their company.
I was referring to the philosophy behind the way those cos are run . You seem the kind to often mistake the wood for the trees.
The future is irrelevant here; they have generated huge wealth and employment. It's a fact.
So by your logic , they ought to retire & go home. Ought to be true for any company which has crossed the age of 60.
In a capitalist system, it is essential to have a process of creative destruction where underperforming entities are replaced by competent companies that succeed.
Not in the strategic sector. Why do we have BSNL still running ? It's always been loss making . However the same government let MTNL go to seed.
The role of the state is to facilitate the process in an efficient manner. Private companies tend to win in this environment because they are more efficient and agile. So, in order to achieve the goal of delivering the best possible equipment to our forces, we need to involve the private industry.
Already answered this above & other posts.
Difficult - yes , Doable - absolutely. Will we do it ? Of course not. 
