tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post872601553583290882..comments2024-03-28T05:22:10.255-07:00Comments on Broadsword by Ajai Shukla - Strategy. Economics. Defence.: MoD starts process to further liberalise FDI in defenceBroadswordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-39985085158379356412016-05-04T09:28:57.480-07:002016-05-04T09:28:57.480-07:00No country is going share technology willingly cas...No country is going share technology willingly case point irrespective of volumes : SU-30, Jaguar or even t-90 tanks<br />No country that imports so much will blindly import : see the kind of deal Australia got for submarines.<br /> India is alone in such matters. I do hope we go beyond into completely indigenous product life cycles with solid manufacturing technology to back up the product designed.<br />Learn from Japan, Mitsubishi type 90 is 50 ton, it's successor is a lighter T10. <br />Chinese have displayed even more steep learning curve with quick iterations of producers each better than previous one. These are not necessarily next gen products unlike what is practised in the west. <br />We made INSAS , no new 'marks' in so many years.<br />We made LCA, now HAL is talking of roping in SAAB. We make Arjun, no inductions.<br />This continuous improvement thought process needs to be in the armed forces, not in DRDO that is a back end organisation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-11218287965360112602016-05-01T09:42:07.162-07:002016-05-01T09:42:07.162-07:00This is arguably the stupidest decision ever taken...This is arguably the stupidest decision ever taken by India's Defence Ministry. No military super-power in the world invites foreign entities to come and manufacture their weapon-systems on their soil. Not the US, not Russia, not UK, not Israel, and not France. Even China, Ukraine and South Korea have never allowed that.<br /><br /><b>Except India.</b><br /><br />In the name of "liberalization" and "reforms" such idiocies must not be allowed. The govt. may claim that it shall "keep a watch" on the foreign company that operates here, but what can it possibly do? <b><i>Every company worth its name is put on a tight leash by its home government, so that no sensitive technology is transferred. Even if its secrets are given (which are done if the tech is outdated), it goes into only those items agreed upon between the company and Govt. of India</i></b><br /><br />I'm not against privatisation; in fact, given the monopoly of manufacturing PSUs like HAL, OFB and BEML, it might just be what the doctor ordered. However, these private entities must be made to partner with DRDO and NOT a foreign entity. This will achieve the twin objectives of privatisation of manufacturing, as well as the progress of indigenous technology. <b>More importantly, by partnering with DRDO instead of some Israeli or American company, the Indian Jawan will never ever be at the mercy of a clutch of managers or a board of directors sitting in some foreign land. Their needs will not be bound by some legally fortified contract, or on geo-politics. Their needs will always be met right here in India. Whenever the need arises.</b><br /><br />After all, isn't the spirit of the slogan "Make in India" self-reliance and Independence? Unfortunately, if this policy goes through, exactly the opposite will be the result.Abhimannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-83961766157078277172016-04-30T03:36:32.130-07:002016-04-30T03:36:32.130-07:00hello Ajai, I don't think any country will sha...hello Ajai, I don't think any country will share technology with us just like that no matter how hard we try. why would anyone give their bread and butter to us just like that when they themselves spent decades developing them. however we must differentiate between technology and manufacturing, the former requires higher FDI limit than the latter but both of which requires incentives in this world of competition. but why do we always look at FDI in steps of 25 or 26%, why can't we have the limit at 51:49 with 51 going to the OEM and the rest to the local partner. it's ridiculous to expect someone to share everything with you without having a sense of control, clearly the proof of this lies in the fact that putting 49% has led to nothing in the last so many months. clearly by this cautious approach the outcome will be nothing and we will be crying for investments for decades to come....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com