I said no one will have a POLICY to create a competitor.
Yes so what's in it for us especially given the huge bill that it comes with ? As I've pointed out before mfg expertise & project management comes with the Rafale.
Except for the propulsion system all other foundational / fundamental technologies can be developed in house.
In any case the 6th Gen FA isn't going to have its First Flight before mid 2040s give or take . That's 2 decades away.
You will have to pay the price or find clever work arounds. We did both with Russia. We paid the price for submarine nuclear reactor. And for A2A missile integration we actually created a technical workaround. I am sure we can do SAME with France. Buy and work around.
Why didn't we approach France for the submarine N reactor then ? Coz like the Brahmos , the MKI & tech for the N powered submarines it's only Russia & previously the USSR who'd entertain you . Not even France will go that far .
This is the first time we're embarking on such a journey with France vis a vis the 120 KN TF . That's the equivalent of technology for a submarine N reactor . How this JV turns out , what France brings to the table & to what extent it lives upto its word will determine how far this strategic relationship goes.
The only other country with which we've a strategic relationship as close or in the same bandwidth as Russia as of the present is Israel which will only increase in the future . France comes a distant third as of now.
There are no pinciples in business deals. Its all bottom line. Only horizon matters. A vendor will offer more favoruable terms if more is procured or vendor is in distress. And unless signed, nothing is committed.
There has to be a minimum level of trust without which no business venture goes anywhere.
What DA did was not just opportunistic & unethical , it was plain bad faith. Ideally they shouldn't be part of any future procurement. But we've severe limitations in terms of the alternatives . That's the only reason they're being entertained & they know that.
Likewise, What is wrong in being opportunist?
Nothing
I profess India to be opportunist too. For instance by locking favourable deal when French were desparte in 00. We certainly used Russian conflict to buy oil cheap from Russia.
Australia almost concluded a deal for 12 nos conventional submarines with France but pulled out at the last minute. You think France won't respond the next time Australia invite them to participate in another tender for submarines in spite of the bad blood ? Yet what'd be the level of trust if both actually sit down to sign an agreement ?
We look after our interests . Where there's an agreement resulting in mutual benefits you have a deal else you've a lot of bad blood. Besides whose side are you on? France or India given the way you're batting for them ?
The way to ensure renege does not happen is to make them sign a binding contract. Participation in competition is NOT a binding contract. Standard business practice. Unless contract is signed, nothing is promised. A winner in competitor can walk away. Just as India can walk away by signing with someone else altogether.
What do you think happened in the Scorpene deal ? Why don't you read up on why Naval Group's behaviour infuriated the IN ? And we aren't the only aggrieved party here.
Earlier there were reports from Malaysia about much the same grievances that IN voiced. There used to be a member from Norway here who reported similar behaviour from le Francais . Norway wasn't convinced of NG's sincerity & awarded the tender to TKMS.
Do you or do you not see a pattern in le Francais behaviour be it NG or DA ?
Everything said and done it was India's OWN failure. And we paid the price of it by delay of procurement and at high price and worse contract terms.
Let's move on. There's only this much you can cry over spilt milk.
Alternative ecosystem will take 20-30 years to mature. Plus alternative eco system should not try to solo research and develop the frontier of military aviation.
Don't know what're you talking about. I was referring to an alternative lead system integrator on the lines of HAL. Why would you need to duplicate the entire ecosystem ? Those vendors & sub contractors can & will remain the same .
Thats why you need someone who knows their stuff. DA+French ecosystem is clearly one. Rest have many many many issues or simply not available to us.
If we do not start on a sixth gen fighter development right now, it will be AMCA story all over again.
Before you start the program you need to have studies to understand the details of what the services require your own competence in delivering them a quality product & that too on time for which you've got to have a fair understanding of your industrial depth for the technologies you've to develop for this particular program.
This is a time consuming process & usually takes a good 4-5 years. Our aim in commencing negotiations with DA for FCAS besides figuring out the nature of the JV our work share contribution etc would be to understand what exactly are their detailed plans vis a vis the 6th Gen FA project?
Then we sit & try to harmonise that with the requirements of the IAF while figuring out what new technologies need to be developed our expertise in developing it time taken cost implications identification of vendors to partner in its development & areas where we'd be unable to bridge the gap.
Then comes the decision making about whether we can manage to get this technology thru consultancy or thru a JV for that particular technology & so on . After cost considerations are evaluated for all these scenarios will come the decision on whether we need a JV for the entire project or part of it or some specific areas like propulsion system.
ADA (rather DRDO, under which ADA comes) messed up Tejas development. Thats the issue. Typical fourth gen development should not have taken this long that fighter they were making became outdated.
They cut more than they could chew. Thats the issue.
They did what they should not have done. Thats the issue.
They should have limited themself (ie DRDO) to only composites, RSS airframe and should have acquired radar, engine, ejection seat, radar nose cone from elsewhere and completed FOC by mid/late 2000s.
Even now these idiots want to bring "made in india" RWR whose certification is not done and is derailing Uttam radar's introduction in MK1A.
Thats the problem.
They do not know how to limit the scope of project and certainly do not know how to finish projects on time. And by on time I mean delayed by 10 years.
They gave false timeline and thats an additional problem.
So please suggest an alternative Indian design house !
I trust French competence and that why I said working with French works. It costs money but it gets you planes. That is not the case with Brits.
You make French sign an air tight contract and they will likely deliver. They delivered Rafales on time and on price they signed contract for.
Let's agree to disagree.
You sign a contract about development of FACS with them and very likely they will deliver. You can include penality clause too. They will charge you an arm and leg surely. But you will not be left without a plane.
The issue isn't if they won't deliver a plane. The issue is what part in the development of it we play & what do we learn from it given the massive investment we're making.
I mean, Turkey is atleast as relevant as AIP in discussion.
Let's drop the issue on AIP & Turkey shall we ?
Sorry, I do not share your confidence in UK. Besides, UK has some weird leftist bullshit going every now and then and their politicians find new ways to derail any deal with India.
The issue isn't whether we're co operating with UK on the 6th Gen FA project . We aren't . The issue is whether they have the kind of expertise France has. I believe they do in spite of a few of their cos being taken over by other European cos which is common practice there as European cos collaborate with the same frequency they fiercely compete with each other.
In any case since both our views are known & neither of us can convince the other let's agree to disagree.
If I were to blow 200 billion dollars, why will I blow it on a project where I know before hand such issues like ITAR might arise in future? Isn't GE's engines a lesson enough?
Secondly, motivation. US has motivation to *censored* India over because it perceives India as a threat. Not just economic but strategic threat.
France does not have those issues.
And I've been pointing out that there are alternatives to ITAR we can explore assuming we do collaborate with a country which is heavily into ITAR stuff. Since we aren't I fail to see why should you raise the question repeatedly . You sure sound like a broken record all thru this post & the previous one.
As far as timelines, yes, FACS will not arrive before 2040s. Like late 2040s. The other alternative is for India to get sixth gen jets in 2080 or so.
The AMCA Mk-1 is largely complete. What's awaited is the announcement of a system integrator . Post that it's a question of building the prototype getting it into trials & certification.
The winner should be announced this financial year. Work should commence on the prototype the next year . It's 3-4 years to build the prototype post which you have taxi trials & First Flight.
That's 2031 or 32 . It should be certified 5 years post First Flight post which or perhaps in between you take up building of the Mk-2 prototype . Where did you get the timeline of 2080 from ?
As for why now? Because you do not want this gap in capability to keep on repeating like it is. We are late on fourth gen fighters. We are very late on fifth gen. And we will be very late on sixth too. So we join with someone who is starting on sixth gen RIGHT NOW with a view of getting planes and development experience. So by 2050, we will atleast have one or two squads of sixth gen fighters.
US & China will be fielding FOC certified 6th Gen FA by mid to late 2030s. GCAP should achieve its FOC by late 2030s likely 2040 . By the looks of it FCAS FOC will happen in mid to late 2040s . Russia isn't even talking about a 6th Gen FA .
We should begin the studies of 6th Gen FA project either this financial year or the next . The very fact that we're holding exploratory talks with DA on the FCAS ought to be treated as confirmation work on this front is happening.
Add 5 years from 2027 to complete the studies which takes you to 2032. We should begin work on the project by 2033. Add 20 years from there for FOC . How far behind do you think we are & as compared to whom ?
I've also added in my posts the observation that AFs , Defence Departments & governments the world over will be having haemorrhoids at the CAPEX & OPEX costs of operating 5th & 6th Gen FAs. You're not going to see a 7th Gen FA project from any of the above mentioned countries anytime soon.
Besides as I've mentioned plenty of times before we're at the cusp of some massive changes in the world order next decade. Whether a 7th Gen program will materialize in the 2040s is moot leave aside the 2030s .
First thing first, only Japanese have fielded that technology. And that too for less than 5 years when Oryu was commission. Korean sub is being constructed and during this decision taken was and still IS not inducted.
Are you assuming both Japan & RoK will field immature technologies ? Granted we need to check for performance over a period of time to verify endurance & durability but you seem to be putting this across as if you're discussing Turkey or worse Malaysia implementing Li Ion batteries in their submarines becoming pioneers in the bargain.
Noteworthy, Japanese DID NOT offer its submarine for P75(I). They did not respond to Indian request to participate in that competition.
I gave you a counter point to IN not opting for this technology when you brought up we're going in for proven AIP technology from TKMS .
We've gotten the Unicorn universal mast with ToT from Japan . They're also proposing we build frigates with them . Why do you think we'd be unable to get Li Ion battery technology from Japan even if they didn't participate in the said tender. Did we even explore the possibility ?
Indian Navy wanted a submarine with proven AIP. NONE with LiPo was on offer. Korea has to YET commission its LiPo based submarine.
Neither has TKMS proven the
fourth-generation fuel-cell Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) it plans to deploy on the Project 75 I submarines they are designing for the IN for the simple reason this technology was certified for use as late as 2024.
German Fuel cell AIP is equally quiete, proven, exported and was on offer. I do not know what the big deal here.
I think we need to drop discussions not central to the topic. In any case I've said what I wanted to on the entire matter. I've nothing more to add.
May be it is your exceptional bad luck to come across mostly incometent people. But don't bluntly equate all people lower than your qualification = bad or worthless, that's goes against your own expectations of Indians with X degree to work in Y job.
